TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (12) TMI 34
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... provisions of section 145(3) of the Act. 2. Confirming action of Assessing Officer passing the order u/s. 144of the Act, clearly overlooking the fact of documents submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) and various details and documents having been furnished before the Assessing Officer and when called for including: 3. Sustaining the addition of Rs. 28,98,540/- by estimating Gross Profit at 9%, calculated on adopted turnover of Rs. 9 crores. 4. Without prejudice and assuming though not admitting about the income of the appellant requiring to be determined on estimation, not appreciating the fact that it should have been quantified on the basis of actual turnover instead of gross receipts which include reimbursement of c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and expenses was less than the amount shown in the audited P&L a/c. The Ld. AR contended that the actual turnover and expense range of 8 crs to 7 Crs. The assessee was asked to identify the area in which discrepancy occurred but they were not able to explain or identify entries in which duplication occurred or to a file a statement showing he same but only produced ledger copy of some account heads stating that the entries are cross verifiable. 3.1 The assessee had not filed a revised P&L a/c audited balance sheet and also not able to explain a large part of expenses of Rs. 12,54,07,397/- i.e. around Rs. 5 Crs, claimed in the return of Income with evidences, it is mandatory to keep the necessary vouchers and bills for any expenses claime....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rofit difference Rs. 65,53,337/- (Rs. 1,17,54,797-52,01,460) was added to the total income returned. 4. On appeal, the CIT(A) adopted the turnover at Rs. 9 crores and then GP rate of 9% was applied on the same in order to work out the income of the assessee. On this basis, the CIT(A) estimated the GP at Rs. 81,00,000/- as against declared GP of Rs. 52,01,460/- leaving a difference of Rs. 28,98,540/-. Thus, out of the total addition of Rs. 65,53,337/-, addition of Rs. 28,98,540/- was sustained and balance was deleted. 5. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had earned resultant gross Handling Charges income aggregating to Rs. 47,69,800/-, which had been credited to the Profit and Los....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ubmission filed before the CIT(A) and as reproduced in his order. 5.2 The Ld. AR submitted that in order to justify and substantiate the fact that the Gross Receipts only stood at what is mentioned at paragraphs 1 and 2 above, the Ld. AR referred to the Service tax returns (PB page Nos. 14 to 20) as well as Form No. 26AS (PB page Nos. 12 & 13), where subject to certain minor reconcilable differences attributable to certain services not liable to service tax / TDS etc., the figures match with these. The Ld. AR submitted that despite the fact that the reimbursement of expenses cannot form part of the Gross Receipts / Turnover for all practical purposes, thus not liable for considering as the basis for estimation of corresponding profit, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... after excluding the receipts on account of reimbursements and dispose the matter on merit. The Ld. AR relied on the decision of the ITAT, Delhi in the case of Jaquar Enterprises vs. DCIT 48 taxmann.com 19 where in the Assessing Officer had charged 8% profit on reimbursement of Godown rent, which was deleted by CIT(A) and upheld by the Tribunal. The Ld. AR also relied on the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of M/s. Helios Logistics vs. ITO in ITA No.1032/Mum/2015 wherein it was held that in case of custom house/clearing and forwarding agent, reimbursement was not part of turnover. The Ld. AR also relied on the ITAT, Cochin in the case of ACIT vs. St. Mary's Rubbers Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 224/Coch/2016 wherein it was observed that reimbursement of exp....