TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 1674
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isdiction. The CIT (A) has erred in upholding the same. 2. That, the assessing officer has erred in computing the total income at Rs. 96,40,800.00 by estimating the Net Profit @8% of the total turnover as against declared income of Rs. 5,68,950.00. The CIT(A) erred in also sustaining the adhoc estimated basis of profit @3.75% of total turnover, which is are illegal, unjust, highly excessive and are not based on any material on record. 3. That, the CIT (A) has erred in rejecting the books of accounts without any basis and purposed, the estimation of Net Profit @3.75%, whereas the CIT (A) has sustained the addition an estimation the addition @3.75%, which is illegal bad in law and without jurisdiction and against the principle of natural justice. 4. That, the CIT (A) has erred in rejecting the books of account U/s 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without pointing the defects in the books maintained by the assessee company and never asked to produce the same before him, therefore, the rejection of books U/s 145(3) of the Act is highly presumptive, arbitrary and unjust. 5. That, the CIT (A) has erred in rejecting the books of accounts on the basis, that, the assessee has not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the assessing officer has erred in computing the total income at Rs. 1,05,41,285.00 against declared income of Rs. 11,47,220.00. The CIT(A) has erred in making the adhoc estimated basis addition of Rs. 1,91,20,750.00 @2.75% on total turnover at Rs. 69.53 Crore, which is are illegal, unjust, highly excessive and are not based on any material on record. 3. That, the CIT (A) has erred in rejecting the books of accounts without any basis and purposed, the estimation of Net Profit @2.75%, whereas the CIT (A) has sustained the addition an estimation the addition @2.75%, which is illegal bad in law and without jurisdiction and against the principle of natural justice. 4. That, the CIT (A) has erred in rejecting the books of account U/s 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without pointing the defects in the books maintained by the assessee company and never asked to produce the same before him, therefore, the rejection of books U/s 145(3) of the Act is highly presumptive, arbitrary and unjust. 5. That, the CIT (A) has erred in rejecting the books of accounts on the basis, that, the assessee has not maintained any purchase bills of the Live Stock without appreciating the nature of bu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual being assessed to tax regularly. The assessee is engaged in the trading of live stock i.e. animals such as old buffalos, bulls, jhota and unused milkless animals. 7. The assessee filed his return of income on 27.11.2014 declaring an income of Rs. 5,68,950/-. During the year, the assessee has shown sales/turnover of Rs. 12.05 crore and has shown GP of Rs. 9.90 lac @ 0.82% and net profit of Rs. 6.01 lac @ 0.50%. It has been observed by the AO that the appellant has made purchases of meat in cash and was not eligible for exemption u/s 40A(3) of the Act read with Rule 6DD of the I.T. Rules and Circular No. 8 of 2006 dated 06-10-2006. The AO found that the assessee has not produced complete books of account, bills/vouchers of purchases in support of results declared in spite of giving repeated opportunities. Therefore the Assessing Officer has computed disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the Act for Rs. 11,09,53,354/- on account of purchases made in cash in violation of Rule 6DD. However, the AO rejected the books of account and has estimated the business profits by applying net profit @ 8% of total turnover and made addi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2012-13, on identical set of facts, has accepted the books of account and deleted the addition made on estimate basis of Net Profit @ 2% which is identical to the present case in hand and squarely applicable. The coordinate bench of ITAT held as under: "8. When these details have been furnished before the AO, then the entire observation of the Ld. AO in the assessment order that these details have not been furnished renders factually incorrect. This fact was reiterated before the Ld. CIT (A) and there is no rebuttal either by the AO who was present in the appellate proceedings or by the Ld. CIT (A). Once the assessee had justified the entire sales which is purely through cheques and banking channels and has given the party wise details of the purchasers and also explained the nature of trade whereby the assessee has no option but to make the purchases in cash which otherwise has statutory sanctity in view of Income Tax Rules under 6DD, then simply because assessee could not furnish the particulars of the purchasers, that does not mean that the entire purchases are bogus or are not verifiable. While examining the trading result, it is important to keep in mind the nature of trade....