TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (6) TMI 858
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Asst.Year 2019-20. The assessee also filed its CO bearing no.01/RJT/2022 against the same order of the ld.CIT(A). Both are disposed of by this common order. 2. The Registry has noted that the CO filed by the assessee before the Tribunal is time barred by 15 days. Though the assessee has not filed any delay condonation application, the Ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that due to some administrative reasons, the assessee could not file the CO in time. It was accordingly prayed that the delay being very small, the same may be condoned in the larger interest of justice, more so, when the assessee has a very good case on hand, for adjudicating the issue on merit. 3. Looking to the quantum of the delay being just 15 days, taking a le....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....addition to Rs.20,03,438/- out of total addition of Rs.2,50,42,980/- made on account of unaccounted sales. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in considering the facts of the case and in ignoring that there were parallel books of accounts maintained by the assessee which was found and impounded during the course of Survey. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in ignoring the facts that during the course of survey, accounting software was found having a record of whole transactions under the code name " Shivam" in software named "Busy" on which the AO has relied upon. 4. On the facts and in the circumsta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pointed out that the ld.CIT(A) had relied on various judicial decisions including that of the jurisdictional High Court while restricting the addition made on account unaccounted sales to the net profit element embedded therein. His finding in his regard at para 7.11 to 7.12 of the order is as under: "7.11 From the discussion made hereinabove, no deviation in the quantum of unaccounted sales determined by the AO is being "made. However, entire sales cannot be treated as income as held by judiciaries in plethora of cases including jurisdictional high court. It held in all the case principally that entire unaccounted sales cannot be treated as an income, but only the profit element embedded in the unaccounted sales can partake the nature of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the appellant in the written submission that there are also instance of the sales of traded items, where margin of profit is lower as compared to the manufactured goods. Therefore, to determine the fair and reasonable real taxable income, if net profit @ 8% on unaccounted sales is estimated then it would meet the ends of the justice. Such Such estimated 8% rate of profit would take care all other discrepancies and contradictions in seized documents including the unaccounted expenses etc. The unaccounted sales worked out by the AO is Rs.73,99,262/-, on which profit at the rate of 8% would come to Rs.5,91,940/- and the addition to this extent is confirmed. Accordingly, addition on account of unaccounted income of the appellant is restricte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e adjusted and reduced accordingly by the income surrendered by the assessee. The ld.DR fairly agreed with the same. 12. Having heard both the parties and having gone through the orders of the authorities below, we have noted that the solitary issue for adjudication before us is vis-à-vis addition confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) on account of unaccounted sales revealed to the AO during search action conducted. The contention of the Revenue was that the ld.CIT(A) ought to have applied 12.5% net profit rate instead of 8%. However, the Revenue has not given any basis to justify applying higher rate of net profit at 12.5%. It is basic common sense that net profit to be applied is to be at justifiable rate depending upon nature of the busine....