TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 649
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct in law in confirming the order of CIT(A) deleting the addition made by the AO, by reducing the sale to Rs. 1.5 Cr. And estimating the net profit @ 3% of the total sale as against the total income assessed by the AO is Rs. 1,80,19,840/? 3. The respondent - assessee is carrying on restaurant business. During the Assessment year 200102 it filed its return and declared its total income at Rs. 1.59 lakhs. In its return of income the assessee had declared its sale of food and liquor at Rs. 2.91 lakhs. The Assessing Officer by order dated 26 March 2004 held that there was suppression of sale of liquor / food items and in particular icecreams, gulab jamun and paneer items to the extent of Rs. 1.78 crores. The aforesaid suppression of sale was a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me the first appellate authority at Para 3.8 from pages 16 to 22 and para 3.9 at pages 19 to 22 has given detailed reasons as to why the workings of the Assessing Officer cannot be upheld in toto. For the sake of brevity we do not reproduce these detailed calculations. Suffice to say that the learned Departmental Representative was not able to controvert or point out any specific infirmity in the estimates made by the CIT(A). The findings of the first appellate authority can be summarized as follows: i) the estimates of suppression of sales of liquor, suppression of sale of food item and icecream, sale of suppression of gulab jamun and suppression of paneer items as worked out by the Assessing Officer, are not based on specific evidence c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) Cost of paneer, cost of purchase of gulab jamun and cost of purchase of icecream were not allowed or discussed in the assessment order." The Tribunal held that it is incorrect to tax the entire turnover as income and for that purpose reliance was placed on the decision of the Tribunal in the case "Overseas Chinese Cousine Vs. ACIT". In the above facts, the Tribunal by the impugned order did not entertain the appeal of the Revenue and upheld the order of CIT (Appeals). 6. Mr.Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the Revenue states that the impugned order of the Tribunal requires interference. This on the ground that the expenses incurred in respect of suppressed sales of food items and liquor have already been taken into account by the respo....