TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (4) TMI 659
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d for various other reasons and hence the same may kindly be quashed. 2.1. The ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the invoking of the provisions of s. 145(3) of the Act by the AO. The provisions so invoked and confirmed by the CIT (A), being contrary to the provisions of law and facts of the case, hence the same may kindly be quashed and the consequent trading addition/disallowances of Rs. 10,72,520/- may kindly be deleted. 2.2. Rs. 10,72,520/- : The ld. AO has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in making trading addition of Rs. 10,72,520/- by applying the N.P. rate of 8.5% as against 5.92% declared by the assessee. The addition so made and confirmed by the CIT (A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 21,42,46,639/-. In the net profit, the assessee has claimed interest of Rs. 16,54,507/- and depreciation of Rs. 81,33,734/-. Further, the profit as declared by the assessee, included the interest on FDR of Rs. 49,01,129/-. It is interesting to know that the assessee himself has declared the interest income on the FDR as income from other sources in his Profit & Loss account in addition to the contract income. 2.1. Since the assessee has included the interest income of Rs. 49,01,129/- and rental income of Rs. 2,10,140/- while calculating the net income, the N.P. rate comes to 5.92%. However, if these two elements i.e. interest income from the FDR and rental income are excluded, then the NP comes to 3.54%. The AO observed that the net prof....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee carried the matter before ld. CIT (A), who upheld the order of the AO by observing at page 13 of his order as under :- " Keeping in view the consistent decisions of Hon'ble Jurisdiction High Court and Hon'ble Jurisdictional ITAT the profit is to be estimated keeping in view the past history of the appellant own case. It may be noted that as per the past history of the appellant case, in assessment year 2006-07 NP rate of 8.5% was confirmed by ld. CIT (A) subject to further claim of interest to third parties and depreciation. The appellant appear to have not filed any appeal against the order of the appellate authority. The AO has also applied the NP rate of 8.5% following the decision of ld. CIT (A) in respect of assessment year....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and facts and circumstances in the present case are the same, as also the assessee has himself has declared the N.P rate at 5.92% on the total contract receipts for the year under consideration, which is better than 5.80% applied by the AO for the subsequent year, the addition made may please be deleted. 4.2. On the other hand, the ld. D/R relied on the orders of the authorities below. 4.3. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. In our view, the assessee has failed to produce the stock register before the AO despite providing various opportunities. We find that during the year under consideration the assessee has disclosed the turnover of Rs. 21,42,46,639/- and had disclosed the net profit of Rs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... expenses claimed in the profit and loss account vis-a-vis receipts and number of queries were raised. 4. However, the Assessing Officer was dissatisfied with the explanation offered by the assessee and not only invoked the provisions of Section 145 of the Act and rejected the book results, but he further disallowed expenses to the rune of Rs. 1,17,75,202/-... Thus the Assessing Officer in effect by disallowing Rs. 1,17,75,202/- determined net profit at 13.7%. 9. In our view, no substantial question of law can be said to arise out of the impugned order as it is essentially a finding of fact by the two appellate authorities. It is admitted fact that provisions of Section 145(3) of the Act have rightly been invoked by the Assessing Office....