TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (10) TMI 1191
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e typical to both the cases. These grounds read as under. "1. a) The ld. CIT (A) has erred in sustaining trading addition of Rs. 698606/- in the declared results by the ld. A.O. b) The ld. CIT (A) had erred in sustaining the action of ld. A.O. in rejecting regular books of accounts maintained by the appellant. c) The Ld. CIT (A) had erred in sustaining application of Gross Profit Rate in the case of appellant. d) The ld. CIT (A) had erred in sustaining application of gross profit on transfer to appellant's own unit. e) The entire addition being bad in law and bad on facts deserves to be deleted. 2. The ld. CIT (A) has erred in confirming interest charged U/s 234 B and 234 C. The levy of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the aforesaid amount while, in fact, no such sale was effected. The reason is that transfer of stock from one proprietary concern of the assessee to another proprietary concern of the assessee does not amount to sale. If this amount is reduced from the total sales, which did not result into profit as stock was transferred at cost, the gross profit ratio would work out at 14.49%. This ratio is better than last year and probably the best ratio of immediately three preceding years. For the sake of ready reference the explanation of the assessee is reproduced below. "According to the comparatives in trading account gross profit ratio is 11.44% against 11.89%, 12.12% or 14.34% in the last year 2004, 2005 and 2006 respectively. We request yo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The Assessing Officer considered the facts of the case and the submissions made before him. It is mentioned that the assessee did not maintain day to day stock book. Therefore, the books of account were rejected and the gross profit ratio was adopted at 14.34% leading to addition of Rs. 6, 98,606/- to the total income of the assessee. The Ld. CIT (A) confirmed this action. 3. The case of the learned counsel before us is that the Assessing Officer did not take into account the fact that the stock of Rs. 50.75 lac transferred to another proprietary concern of the assessee, M/s Priya Laxmi Textiles, did not amount to sale. He considered this transfer as sale because the same was shown as such in the books of account of the assessee. The non....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reasonable. He heavily relied on the orders of the lower authorities. He also placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Dhondiram Dalichan Vs CIT (1971) 81 ITR 609. 5. We have considered the facts of the case and submissions made before us. The case of the Assessing Officer, which has been confirmed by the Ld. CIT (A), is that - (a) sale of stock by one proprietary concern to another proprietary concern of the assessee amounts to sale for the purpose of determining the turnover; and (b) there are deficiencies in maintaining the books of account as day to day quantitative details have not been maintained and the vouchers are not fully available. In so far as the first point is concerned, we do not find an....