TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (11) TMI 1154
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....STIMATION OF SALES (Rs.15,45,186/-) i. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 15,45,186/- made by the A.O. to the income of Goa unit on estimate by adopting the figure of the Murud unit and accordingly dismissing the ground of appeal. ii. The ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that: (a) The Gross Profit shown by the appellant in the Goa unit was comparable and in fact better than the result shown in earlier years. (b) Maintenance of quantitative details of consumable food items running into hundreds is not practicable, as also appreciated by the Govt. of India, which grants exemption for such quantitative details, and such an exemption cannot be a gr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....- 4. Under this issue the assessee has challenged the confirmation of addition to the tune of Rs. 15,45,186/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of the income of the Goa unit assessed on the basis of the figure of the Murud unit. The assessee was in the business of hoteliering. The assessee was running two units vide which one unit was being run at Goa whereas the other unit was being run at Murud. The sale rate at Murud unit was much lower than the sale rate of Goa of food and beverage items. The assessee company did not keep any record of day to day consumption of food and beveragers purchased and consumed and sales made. The Assessing Officer noted the following points:- a. During the month of March 2008, the purchases at Murud ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and therefore the AO ought to have accepted the Gross Profit as shown in the Goa Hotel in the year under assessment (Refer pg. 67 of P.B.) (ii) The accounts of the appellant company are audited under provision of Companies Act 1956 and also u/s.44AB of the I.T.Act and are subject to scrutiny by other government departments, viz., Luxury Tax and Sales Tax Officer at Goa and Murud. (iii) The AO erred in failing to make out a case as to why the G.P. shown by the appellant was not acceptable. He further erred in failing to bring on record any comparable case of any other outside assessee in the same geographical area having similar nature of business so a to justify any addition to G.P. The AO has acted on pure guess, suspicion, surmises and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... suppressed sales. 7. All figures which have been mentioned in the said assessment order speaks about the less profit of the Goa unit. In view of the said figures mentioned above, we are of the view that the Assessing Officer has wrongly assessed the gross / net profit of the Goa unit by comparing the profit of Murud unit. In view of the above said specific facts and circumstances, we are of the view that end of the justice would meet if the disallowance to be reduced to the extent of 50% of the above addition to the tune of Rs. 15,45,186/- Accordingly, we allow the same and the Assessing Officer is hereby directed to reduced the addition to the extent of 50% of the amount of Rs. 15,45,186/-. Accordingly, this issue has been partly allowed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ture has been incurred, in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Act for such previous year, he shall determine the amount of expenditure in relation to such income in accordance with the provision of sub-rule (2). (2) The expenditure in relation to income which does not form part of the total income shall be the aggregate of following amounts, namely:- (i) the amount of expenditure directly relating to income which does not form part of total income; (ii) in a case where the assessee has incurred expenditure by way of interest during the previous year which is not directly attributable to any particular income or receipt, an amount computed in accordance with the following formula namely:- A x B/C....