TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (11) TMI 369
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt year 1989-90 arising from judgment and order dated 21st September, 2005, passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow Bench in Income Tax Appeal No. 258/LUC/2000, whereby order dated 3.8.2000 passed by Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as CIT (Appeals)] has been set aside and allowable expenditure per month has been estimated at Rs. 1,15000/- as against Rs. 1,00000/- estimated by Assessing Officer. The order of Assessing Officer was accordingly modified. 3. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that CIT (Appeals) in his judgement dated 3.8.2000 has assessed net profit rate at 1% by referring to fact that in assessment year 1986-87 also, same profit rate was accepted. He drew attention of Court towards pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... explain the reason for fail in profit when the line of business is the same. It is quite possible that some sites in the A.Yrs. 1987-88 and 88-89 would be common. Since the appellant has already undergone three assessments, two remand reports it would be futile to send the appellant back to the A.O. for fresh assessment. Litigation must be brought to an end. This observation does not mean that results declared by the appellant should be accepted. 15. By taking a most converting view I apply net profit rate on the business receipts calculated by me in para 2 above of Rs. 6,67,15,469/- i.e. trading receipts, interest income and hiring charge. I apply a net profit rate of 1%. The reason why I am applying 1% N.P. rate is that in the A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ced and accepted, though the said assessment had been set aside. Ld. CIT(A) had determined the net profit rate at 1%. Keeping into consideration all these facts and entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, in our opinion, it would meet the ends of justice if the allowable expenditure per months is estimated at Rs. 1,15,000/- (Rs. One lakh fifteen thousand only) as against Rs. 1,00,000/- estimated by Assessing Officer. We, accordingly, set aside the order of ld. CIT(A) and partly restore that of Assessing Officer." 5. Further from the order of Tribunal, it transpires that Assessing Officer found that assessee did not furnish details of administrative expenditure taken in previous years and as such expenses claimed by assessee were....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssment year giving due weight age to the inflationary trend and the period of 18 months under consideration, he estimated the Administrative Expenses at 18.00 lacs. Ld. D.R. pointed out that the ratio of administrative expenses to net contract receipt over each assessment years was as under: A.Y. Net contact receipt (Rs.) Administrative expenses allowed (rs.) 88-89 85015922 1431638 1.68% 87-88 64450450 1400410 2.17% 86-87 46379470 661147 1.42% 6. Tribunal has also given details of administrative expenses claimed by assessee and same has been detailed in para 18 of judgement, which reads as under: List of Administrative Expenses. S.No. Particulars Amounts 1. ....