TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (8) TMI 868
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ue's appeal (A.Y. 2009-10) "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld CIT(A) has erred in: (i) restricting the trading addition to Rs. 6,18,430/- instead of Rs. 42,32,926/- made by the A.O. in respect of construction business by invoking the provisions of 145(3) and applying N.P. Rate at 8%. (ii) restricting the trading addition to Rs. 35,000/- instead of Rs. 2,55,523/- made by the A.O. in respect of wine business by invoking the provisions of 145(3) and applying G.P. at 24%" Ground of Assessee's C.O. No. 24/JP/2013 "1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Id CIT (A) has erred in confirming the action of the Id AO in rejecting the books of account of the assessee by invoking the provision of section 145(3) and thereafter confirming the trading addition of Rs. 6,18,430/- out of the total trading addition of Rs. 42,32,926/- of construction business made by the Id. AO . The action of the Id. CIT (A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by quashing the rejection of books and deleting the trading addition of Rs. 6,18,430/- 2. In the fact....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ril, 2005. Accordingly, he disallowed Rs. 61,97,060/- U/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter before the ld CIT(A), who had allowed the appeal in favour of the assessee on both the grounds i.e. technical as well as on merit also. He held that reopening U/s 147 is bad in law. There is no omission on the part of appellant in disclosing the fact. As all the facts were narrated in the audit report and Assessing Officer had scrutinized the case U/s 143(3) of the Act and reopening was after four years from the relevant assessment year. On merit, he has considered the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court decision in the case of CIT Vs Virgin Creations ITA No. 302 of 2011, GA No. 3200/2011. The TDS has been deposited before due date of return. The amendment made in Section 40(a)(ia) by the Finance Act, 2010 is clarificatory. 5. Now the revenue is in appeal before us. The ld DR has vehemently supported the order of the Assessing Officer on both the issues. At the outset, the ld AR of the assessee has supported the order of the ld CIT(A) and prayed to uphold the order passed by him. 6. We have heard the rival content....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....abour charges, shattering charges and water supplier. The assessee had claimed these expenses on self made vouchers. The opening and closing stock were shown by the assessee on estimate basis. The assessee's case has been audited U/s 44AB but the Auditor had not pointed out whether expenses are supported with the vouchers and the balance of creditors and debtors are confirmed. Age wise debtors and creditors limit had not been mentioned in audit report. The assessee had not maintained stock register but the method of valuation and quantification of stock had been mentioned as FIFO. Therefore, the ld Assessing Officer proposed to reject the books of account U/s 145(3). It is further held that the assessee has liquor business, there is no sale voucher to verify the sale value. Accordingly, he proposed to apply provisions of Section 145(3) of the Act on liquor business also. The assessee replied vide letter dated 25/11/2011 by considering the assessee's reply, the ld Assessing Officer held that in A.Y. 2007-08, the ld CIT(A) confirmed the application of net profit rate @ 8% on gross contract receipts subject to deduction of financial charges and depreciation. By considering the Hon'ble....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....31% which was 6.13% in immediate preceding year but in A.Y. 2007-08, the NP rate was 6.73% compared to preceding year the NP rate has increased on contract receipts, therefore, no addition can be made by the Assessing Officer and cannot be sustained by the ld CIT(A). It is a fact that A.Y. 2008-09 has not been scrutinized. He further relied on the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Inani Marbles (P) Ltd. (2009) 316 ITR 125 (Raj) and Hon'ble Delhi High Court decision in the case of Action Electricals (2002) 258 ITR 188 (Del) wherein it has been held that past history of the assessee would be one of the reliable guideline to make or not to make any addition. He further calculated the average net profit rate disclosed on the basis of A.Y. 2005-06 to 2008-09 i.e. @ 6.17%. The assessee had disclosed NP rate @ 6.31% if the addition confirmed by the ld CIT(A), the net profit rate is worked out @ 6.78%, which is totally unjustified. Therefore, he prayed to allow the C.O., delete the addition confirmed by the ld CIT(A) and dismissed the revenue's appeal. 11. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record.....