TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (8) TMI 1121
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t year 2008-2009. Since, the issues raised in both the appeals are connected, therefore, for the sake of convenience, they are clubbed, heard combinedly and disposed of in this consolidated order. 2. Firstly, we shall take up the appeal ITA No.8061/M/2011 filed by the Revenue on 1.12.2011 against the order of the CIT (A) dated 21.9.2011. In this appeal, Revenue raised the following grounds which read as under: "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) has erred in directing the AO to restrict the addition of Rs. 2,80,337/- without appreciating the fact that the assessee was unable to produce two parties namely M/s. Bhakti Trading Co. and M/s. Sunrise Enterprises. 2. On the facts and i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gs before the first appellate authority, regarding the said two parties i.e., M/s. Bhakti Trading Co and M/s. Sunrise Enterprises, assessee made various submissions furnishing the banking transactions involving these two suppliers and submitted that the payments were made by these parties through account payee cheques, the copies of the invoices were also furnished. Regarding the failure of the parties to attend before the AO, it was submitted that these parties were having transactions with the assesee therefore it is difficult for him to produce them personally as there was a gap of three years. The fact that the genuineness of the transactions not doubted was also explained. CIT (A) appreciated the submissions made by the AO vide the dis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the same is relevant in this regard. For the sake of completeness of this order, relevant portions from the para 3.3 of the CIT (A)‟s order are reproduced here which read as under: "3.3.........In fact, operational profits of past 4 years before depreciation are as under: AY Turnover Profit before depreciation 2004-05 10,28,11,690 4.98% 2005-06 11,17,18,002 5.14% 2006-07 14,38,46,800 6.5% 2007-08 22,85,07,658 6.5% 2008-09 49,80,65,227 5.94% Average 5.81% Thus, from the above past results also it is noted that the average operational profits (before depreciation has been around 5.81% and hence it is clear that the appellant ag....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....83,913/-. Since, the appellant has disclosed the profit before depreciation at Rs. 2,96,03,576/- only, therefore, the difference in estimated profit before depreciation and the profit before depreciation as declared by the assessee comes to Rs. 2,80,337/- (29883913 - 29603576). Hence, the addition of Rs. 80 lakhs made by the AO is reduced to Rs. 2,80,337/- only and balance is directed to be deleted." 8. From the above, it is evident that the assessee has registered the average NP @ 5.81% before depreciation. Assessee also agreed for taxing of net income @ 6% before depreciation. The fact of profit element on depreciation was also discussed by the CIT in the above extracted portion of the CIT (A)‟s order. Considering the same, we ar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Revenue Authorities as well as the relevant material placed before us. On perusal of the order of the CIT (A) in general and para 4.3 in particular, we find the same is relevant in this regard. For the sake of completeness of this order, relevant portions from the said para 4.3 of CIT (A)‟s order reproduced as under: "4.3...........The disallowance made by the AO is based only on the ground that ownership of the JCB is not with the appellant when the same stands registered in the name of the sister concern under the Motor Vehicle Act. The ownership of JCB being a vehicle is determined by the possession of the vehicle (JCB). Moreover, it is the constructive or beneficial ownership which has to be seen in the case of a vehi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sonable and it does not call for any interference. Accordingly, ground no.2 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 12. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 13. This Cross Objection is filed by the assessee on 5.10.2012 is against the order of the CIT (A)-32, dated 21.9.2011. In this cross objection, assessee raised the following grounds which read as under: "1. The ld Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax have erred in filing the appeal before your honor as the Ld CIT (A) have thoroughly discussed in his order regarding deletion of income, therefore, the same is against the principle of natural justice. 2. The Ld CIT (A) had rightly deleted the addition of Rs. 77,19,660./- on account of ad-hoc addition of net p....