TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (9) TMI 1110
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Tax(A) has erred in Law and facts of the case in sustaining the addition of Rs. 4,90,000/- as extra profit being 1% of the cash sales. 1. The appellant craves to add, alter, amend or change any or all grounds of appeal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee filed return of income declaring income of Rs. 27,68,239/-, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and an assessment order came to be passed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 19/12/2011 by making addition of Rs. 4,90,000/- being 1% of the total sales realized in cash. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 19/12/2011, the assessee preferred an Appeal before the CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 31/12/2012 dismissed the Appeal filed by the assessee. As ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The assessee purchases coal from the said Government Agencies and sell them to various brick Kiln owners. During the year under consideration, the cash sales were around 47 to 48% of total sales and rest was realized in cheque and draft. The payments were received in cash in installments to the range of 1 to 2 lakhs as against the sales. The assessee had shown the commission income of Rs. 94,66,734/- and interest income of Rs. 18,38,230/- on the sales of Rs. 10,21,96,459/- and purchase of Rs. 7,16,81,778/- and the net profit shown was 2.01%. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessee was asked to substantiate the source of cash deposited in the bank account of the Assessee. In response, the assessee has provided following documents:- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e guess work. Further, no specific defect in the books of account had been pointed out warranting rejection thereof. Learned Counsel for the Revenue was unable to demonstrate that the conclusions recorded by CIT(A) and the Tribunal are perverse in any manner. We find that the findings recorded by the CIT(A) and approved by the Tribunal being based on record do not call for any interference. The substantial question of law is, thus, answered against the Revenue." The Raipur Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sanjay Aggarwal Vs. DCIT in ITA No. 399/RPR/2016 held that as under:- "12. We have perused the assessment order and the first appellate order. Both the orders are totally non-descript and has nothing worth to say for substi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee. Without this first step, the fact that the gross profit/net profit is low cannot by itself be a ground for taking a view that it is open to the AO to make good alleged deficiency in profits declared. Thus, the action of the AO requires to be cancelled and set aside on this score alone being devoid of any legitimacy." 8. In the present case, the A.O. had not doubted the genuineness of the documents produced by the Assessee to substantiate the source of cash deposit in the bank account and made the addition of Rs. 4,90,000/- as extra profit being 1% of the cash sales without rejecting the books of accounts of the Assessee. The pre condition for estimating business income where the assessee maintaining books of account is that, the b....