M/s. Anil & Anil, Ahmedabad V. The ACIT.,Circle-5, Baroda

CO 43/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9906 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 27-11-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 12-11-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 12-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Gross profit estimation; Depreciation

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD A BENCH AHMEDABAD , BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI N. S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ITA. NO. 2926/AHD/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:2008-09) ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-5, 5 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, RACE COURSE CIRCLE, BARODA-390007 APPELLANT VS. M/S. ANIL & ANIL 25, WAGHESHWARI SOCIETY, VIP ROAD, KARELIBAUG, BARODA-390018 RESPONDENT & C. O. NO. 43/AHD/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:2008-09) M/S. ANIL & ANIL 25, WAGHESHWARI SOCIETY, VIP ROAD, KARELIBAUG, BARODA-390018 APPELLANT VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-5, 5 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, RACE COURSE CIRCLE, BARODA-390007 RESPON DENT I.T.A. NO. 2926/AHD/2012 & C. O. NO. 43/AHD/2013 FOR A.Y. 2008-09 (ACIT VS. M/S. ANIL & ANIL) PAGE 2 PAN: AACFA6027H / BY REVENUE :SHRI B. KULSHRESTHA, SR. D.R. / BY ASSESSEE : SHRI ANIL R. SHAH, A.R. /DATE OF HEARING :12.11.2014 !'# /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.11.2014 ORDER PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, J.M: SINCE, BOTH THESE REVENUES APPEAL AND ASSESSEES C ROSS OBJECTION ARE ARISING OUT FROM THE SAME ORDER OF CI T(A)-V, BARODA, DATED 04.10. 2012 FOR A.Y. 2008-09, SO THEY ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY COMMON ORDER FOR SAKE OF CONVENIENCE . 2. IN ITA NO. 2926/AHD/2012, REVENUE HAS FILED THE APPEAL ON THE FOLLOWING GROUND: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN QUASHING T HE ACTION OF AO IN REJECTING BOOKS U/S 145(3) OF THE I T ACT AND ESTIMATING GROSS PROFIT AT RS.1,23,65,994/- OF THE IT ACT. 3. ASSESSEE DERIVED INCOME FROM PROFIT AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION, INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAIN. THE ONLY I SSUE IN REVENUES APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO REJECTION OF BOO KS ACCOUNT AND ESTIMATION OF GROSS PROFIT. ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT I.T.A. NO. 2926/AHD/2012 & C. O. NO. 43/AHD/2013 FOR A.Y. 2008-09 (ACIT VS. M/S. ANIL & ANIL) PAGE 3 DETAILS WERE MAINTAINED BY ASSESSEE TRUCK NUMBERWIS E. NAMES, PAN NUMBERS AND ADDRESSES OF PARTIES WERE NO T VARIFIABLE IN THE LEDGER ACCOUNT FURNISHED BY ASSES SEE. ON VERIFICATION OF BILLS AND VOUCHERS, IT WAS NOTICED BY HIM THAT PAYMENTS WERE MADE IN MANY CASES AFTER A LAPSE OF 8 -10 MONTHS WHICH WAS UNUSUAL FOR IN THIS LINE OF BUSINE SS. HE ALSO OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE OWNED 37 VEHICLES AND 1 2 NEW VEHICLES WERE PURCHASED DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR. THEREFORE, HE WAS OF THE OPINION THAT TOTAL HIRE CHARGES PAID BY THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTING TO RS.5,63,18,327/- WERE UNREASO NABLE CONSIDERING THAT TURN OVER OF ASSESSEE WAS RS. 12,3 6,59,940/- ONLY. HE ALSO OBSERVED THAT AS AGAINST FREIGHT EXPE NSES PAID AMOUNTING TO RS. 5,63,18,327/-, FREIGHT PAYMENT TO THE TUNE OF RS. 3,58,37,701/- WAS OUTSTANDING. IN VIEW OF THIS, ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED ASSESSEE TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY BOOK RESULTS MAY NOT BE REJECTED AND PROFIT MAY NOT BE ESTIMATED . IN RESPONSE TO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE FURNISHED WRIT TEN SUBMISSION DATED 27.12.2010 WHICH HAS BEEN REPRODUC ED BY HIM IN THE BODY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER AT PAGE NOS. 6, 7 & 8 BUT THE SAME WAS FOUND NOT ACCEPTABLE BY HIM FOR FOLLOW ING REASONS: ' THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PROVIDE THE LORRY WISE INCOME AND EXPENSES BOTH HIRED AND OWN WHICH IT COULD NOT PROVIDE HENCE THE TRUE PROFIT CANNOT BE ASCERTAINED BECAUSE IN THE CASE OF HIRED VEHICLES THE OVERHEAD COSTS NEED TO B E ALSO DISTRIBUTED TO ARRIVE AT CORRECT FIGURE OF PROFIT. ONLY FREIGHT I.T.A. NO. 2926/AHD/2012 & C. O. NO. 43/AHD/2013 FOR A.Y. 2008-09 (ACIT VS. M/S. ANIL & ANIL) PAGE 4 EXPENSES CANNOT DETERMINE THE PROFIT RATIO ON HIRED VEHICLES. THE LOADING AND UNLOADING CHARGES ARE ALSO THE CHAR GES WHICH MIGHT HAVE BEEN PAID ON HIRED VEHICLES AS ON THE FREIGHT MEMOS OR CASH PAYMENT VOUCHERS OF THE HIRED VEHICLES THERE IS NO MENTION OF LOADING AND UNLOADI NG CHARGES AND THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE ON LOADING AND UN LOADING IS RS.1,36,94,849/-. MOREOVER THE LORRY PAYABLE IS KEPT OUTSTANDING AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE TRUCK NUMBERS WI TH NO REFERENCE OF THE TRUCK OWNERS OR THE AGENT THROUGH WHOM THE TRUCKS MAY HAVE BEEN HIRED. THEREFORE, THE CRED ITORS ARE NON VERIFIABLE. MOREOVER FROM THE TRUCKS NUMBER IT IS EVIDENT THAT THEY ARE FROM ALL PARTS OF THE COUNTRY HENCE THEY CANNOT BE MADE AVAILABLE FOR VERIFICATION. IN ADDITION, THE VOUCHERS RELATED TO PAYMENT TO RESPECTIVE TRUCK S DO NOT MENTION ANY AMOUNT OF LOADING AND UNLOADING EXPENSE S, TOLL TAX, TRIP EXPENSES ABOUT WHICH THE ASSESSEE SAYS TH AT ALL THESE EXPENSES ARE INCLUDED IN THE FREIGHT EXPENSES ONLY. IN FACT FROM THE LEDGER OF LOADING AND UNLOADING EXPEN SES IT IS NOT CLEAR WHETHER THESE EXPENSES INCURRED ON OWN VE HICLE OR HIRED VEHICLE. THEREFORE WITHOUT SEGREGATING THESE EXPENSES THE PROFIT ON EACH TRUCK CAN NOT BE INDEPENDENTLY DETERMINED AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE EXPENSES VIS- A-VIS EACH TRUCK CANNOT BE VERIFIED. THROUGH THE CASH PAYMENT VOUCHERS , IT HAS BEEN OBS ERVED THAT ON VARIOUS DATES PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE TO TRUC K DRIVER OF VEHICLES. BUT THERE ARE DIFFERENT SIGNAT URES OF THE DRIVERS OF THE SAME VEHICLE ON DIFFERENT DATES. THE DATES ARE ALSO VERY CLOSE TO EACH OTHER HENCE THE PAYMENTS TO DIFFERENT PERSONS DRIVING THE TRUCKS OR OWNING THE TRUCKS IS BEYOND COMPREHENSION. THEREFORE THE GENUINENESS OF THE PAY MENT TO RESPECTIVE TRUCK IS DOUBTFUL. MOST IMPORTANT IS THE FACT THAT IN THE CASE OF LORR Y PAYABLE, BILLS ARE RAISED WITHIN THE YEAR OR AN ADVANCE PAYM ENT IS MADE TO THE TRUCK DRIVERS ON THE FIRST OCCASION AND THE REST OF THE AMOUNT IS KEPT PAYABLE ON THE BALANCE SHEET DATE. THE BALANCE PAYMENT IS MADE IN A SPAN OF ONE TO TWO YEARS AND THIS STRANGE PATTERN IS FOLLOWED FOR ALL VEHICL ES EVEN THE VEHICLES WHICH ARE FROM AS FAR AS THE SOUTHERN MOST PART OF INDIA. THEREFORE, IT IS TOTALLY IMPLAUSIBLE AND UNA CCEPTABLE I.T.A. NO. 2926/AHD/2012 & C. O. NO. 43/AHD/2013 FOR A.Y. 2008-09 (ACIT VS. M/S. ANIL & ANIL) PAGE 5 THAT THE DRIVERS OF THESE VEHICLES WOULD RETURN TO CLAIM A PALTRY AMOUNT OF MONEY FROM ALL PARTS OF THE COUNTR Y. MOREOVER THESE PAYMENTS ARE MADE IN CASH, HENCE IT IS NON VERIFIABLE. MOREOVER THESE PAYMENTS ARE MADE IN CA SH, HENCE IT IS NON VERIFIABLE. MOREOVER IN MANY CASES THE INITIAL PAYMENT DURING THE YEAR IS MADE THROUGH CHEQUE AND SUBSEQUENT PAYMENTS ARE MADE IN CASH. THEREFORE, I T IS BEYOND COMPREHENSION THAT IF THE DRIVERS ACCEPT THE PAYMENT THROUGH CHEQUE THEN WHAT IS THE NEED OF PAY ING THEM IN CASH. MERE BOOK ENTRY OR MAINTAINING THE BO OK DOES NOT EXONERATE THE ASSESSEE FROM PROVING THE GENUINE NESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. MOREOVER IN TRANSPORTATION BUSIN ESS THE TRUCK DRIVERS REQUIRE IMMEDIATE PAYMENT, THEIR PAYM ENT CANNOT BE KEPT ON HOLD. THUS, CREATING CREDIT ENTRY IN THE BOOK IS AGAINST THE NATURE AND PHILOSOPHY OF THE BU SINESS OF TRANSPORTERS. IN ADDITION THERE IS AN INCREASE IN CAPITAL, INCREA SE IN SALES, CASH FLOW HAS COME THROUGH DECREASE IN DEBTORS YET THE CREDITORS HAVE NOT BEEN REDUCED. THE ASSESSEE SAYS THAT THE FIRM IS MAINTAINING OUTSTANDING ACCOUNT EACH TRUCK WISE AND KEEPING PROPER RECORDS AND VOUCHERS. FURTHER CO PY OF R.C. BOOK, DRIVERS LICENSE ETC. OF THE VEHICLES HIR ED ARE ALSO OBTAINED AND KEPT WITH THE FIRM. IF THIS HAS BEEN TRUE THEN THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN A POSITION TO FURN ISH THE PROFIT WORKING OF EACH TRUCK WHICH WAS HIRED DURING THE YEAR, HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVIDE ANY SU CH DETAIL. IT IS AN ACCEPTED FACT IN TRANSPORTATION INDUSTRY, CIVIL CONTRACT, LABOUR CONTRACT THAT THE DRIVERS OR THE L ABOURERS CANNOT WAIT FOR THEIR PAYMENT EVEN IF THEY ARE WORK ING IN AN AREA OF THEIR RESIDENCE. HOWEVER HERE THE DRIVERS A ND THE TRUCKS ARE FROM ALL THE PART OF THE COUNTRY AND IT IS NOT POSSIBLE THAT THEY WOULD RETURN AFTER A YEAR TO REC EIVE THE PAYMENT DUE FROM THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IT IS MER ELY A BOOK ENTRY WHICH DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE BUSINESS PRUD ENCE ESPECIALLY IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE'S BUSINESS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS AND REMARKS, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF GROSS DEFI CIENCIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. I AM CONV INCED THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT V ERIFIABLE I.T.A. NO. 2926/AHD/2012 & C. O. NO. 43/AHD/2013 FOR A.Y. 2008-09 (ACIT VS. M/S. ANIL & ANIL) PAGE 6 AND PROPER PROFIT CANNOT BE ARRIVED AT. THEREFORE I REJECT THE BOOKS U/S 1454(3) OF THE ACT. 3.1 BESIDES THIS ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO RELIED ON C ERTAIN CASE LAWS AND IN VIEW OF ABOVE, ASSESSING OFFICER REJECT ED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT U/S.145(3) AND GROSS PROFIT BEFORE REMUN ERATION AND INTEREST TO PARTNERS WAS ESTIMATED @ 10% OF THE TOT AL RECEIPT (TURN OVER) OF RS.12,36,59,940/- I.E. RS.1,23,65,99 4/-. AFTER GIVING SET OF EXPENSES CLAIMED THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT WAS DETERMINED AT RS.32,54,720/-. 4. MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AU THORITY, WHEREIN VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF ASSES SEE. HAVING CONSIDERED THE SAME, CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT AS SESSING OFFICER HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY DEFECTS IN THE BOOK S OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY ASSESSEE. REASONS LISTED BY ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAD NOT CONDUCTED ANY ENQUIRIES TO BRING OUT ON REC ORD THAT ANY OF THE HIRE CHARGES DEBITED WERE BOGUS, EXCESSI VE OR UNREASONABLE COMPARED TO THE MARKET VALUE OF THE SA ME. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT VER IFIED WHETHER FREIGHT CHARGES SHOWN AS OUTSTANDING ARE GE NUINE OR NOT. REJECTION OF BOOKS HAS BEEN MADE ENTIRELY ON CONJECTURE AND SURMISES WITHOUT BRINING ANYTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT BOOKS WERE NOT CORRECT OR INCOMPLETE, OBSERVED BY C IT(A). THEREFORE, HE HELD THAT ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT J USTIFIED IN REJECTING BOOKS RESULT AND ESTIMATING GROSS PROFIT. ACCORDINGLY, ADDITION ON THAT AMOUNT WAS QUASHED. SAME HAS BEEN OPPOSED BEFORE US ON BEHALF OF REVENUE INTER ALIA S UBMITTING I.T.A. NO. 2926/AHD/2012 & C. O. NO. 43/AHD/2013 FOR A.Y. 2008-09 (ACIT VS. M/S. ANIL & ANIL) PAGE 7 THAT CIT(A) ERRED IN QUASHING THE ORDER OF ASSESSI NG OFFICER IN REJECTING BOOKS U/S. 145(3) OF THE ACT AND ESTIMATI NG GROSS PROFIT @ 1,23,65,994/-. IN SUM AND SUBSTANCE, LD. SR. D.R. RAISED VARIOUS CONTENTIONS TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER O F CIT(A) AND RESTORING THAT OF ASSESSING OFFICER. ON OTHER HAND , LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF CI T(A). 5. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND MA TERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE FIRM HAS FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2008-09 U/S. 139(1) DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.6,38,930/-. AGAINST THE RETURN OF INCOME OF RS. 6,38,930/- THE TAXABLE INCOME FROM BUSINESS WAS CONSIDERED AT RS.25,70,242/- (RS.1,23,65,994/- BEING 10% OF TURN OVER OF RS.12,36,59,940/- LESS DEPRECIATION ALLOWABLE AS PE R INCOME TAX ACT RS.88,02,355/-. REMUNERATION ALLOWED TO PA RTNERS AS PER BOOKS RS.3,51,404/- AND INTEREST ALLOWED TO PAR TNERS RS.6,41,993/-). BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE WERE DULY AUDITED BY AN INDEPENDENT FIRM OF CHARTERED ACCOUNT ANTS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AB OF THE ACT AND AUDIT REPORT ALONG WITH AUDITED STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS. A LL ANNEXURES WERE PLACED ON RECORD DURING COURSE OF AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. DURING COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS, ASSESSING OFFICER INSISTED TO SUBMIT LORRY WISE INC OME AS EXPENSES FOR BOTH HIRED AND OWN VEHICLES. DURING T HE WHOLE YEAR, MORE THAN TEN THOUSAND VEHICLES ARE ENGAGED. LOOKING TO THE QUANTUM INVOLVED, IT WAS NOT PRACTICALLY POSSIB LE TO RESPOND TO THE QUERY OF A.O. HOWEVER, ALL THE BOOK S OF ACCOUNT I.T.A. NO. 2926/AHD/2012 & C. O. NO. 43/AHD/2013 FOR A.Y. 2008-09 (ACIT VS. M/S. ANIL & ANIL) PAGE 8 ALONG WITH RELEVANT VOUCHERS BILLS ETC. WERE PRODUC ED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR HIS VERIFICATION AND OVER ALL GROSS PROFIT RATIO SHOWN BY ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAK EN INTO CONSIDERATION WHETHER THE SAME IS AT PAR WITH THE I NDUSTRY OR NOT. THUS, WE FIND THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY DEFECT IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY ASSESS EE. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT CONDUCTED ANY INDEPENDENT INQUIRY TO MAKE OUT THE CASE THAT ANY OF HIRE CHARGES DEBIT ED WERE BOGUS, EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE COMPARED TO THE MA RKET VALUE OF THE SAME. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT EVEN VERIFIED FREIGHT CHARGES SHOWN AS OUTSTANDING ARE GENUINE AR E NOT. IN THIS BACKGROUND, ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIE D IN REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ESTIMATING GROSS PROFIT FOR MAKING ADDITIONS. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, CIT(A ) WAS JUSTIFIED IN QUASHING THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFIC ER IN REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT U/S. 145(3) OF THE ACT AND EST IMATING GROSS PROFIT AT RS.1,23,65,994/-. SAME IS UPHELD. 5. IN C.O. NO. 43/AHD/2013, ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE C.O. ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE LD. CIT(A)-V, BARODA HAS RIGHTLY HELD CONSID ERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND PROVISIONS OF LAW THAT TH E RESPONDENT IS MAINTAINING REGULAR AND PROPER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THAT AO HAS NOT FOUND ANY GRAVE MISTAK E IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND/OR OTHER INGREDIENTS REQUIRED TO RESORT TO SECTIONS 145(2) OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT (A) -V HAS RIGHTLY HELD THAT THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER HAD ERRED IN RESORTING TO SEC.L45(2) OF THE ACT I.T.A. NO. 2926/AHD/2012 & C. O. NO. 43/AHD/2013 FOR A.Y. 2008-09 (ACIT VS. M/S. ANIL & ANIL) PAGE 9 AND HAD ALSO ERRED IN ESTIMATING G.P.AT 10% AND THEREBY MAKING A HUGE ADDITION OF RS. 21,72,698/-. YOUR RESPONDENT THEREFORE SUBMITS THAT THE DETAILED AND SPEAKING ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-V BE UPHELD AND TH E APPEAL FILED BY THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT BE DISMISSED AS INFRACTUOUS. 2. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE YOUR RESPONDENT SUBMI TS THAT LD. CIT(A)-V HAS ERRED IN GIVING DIRECTION TO D ELETE RS.3,21,000/- ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF CLEAR CUT PROVISIONS OF LAW AND VOLUMINO US FACTS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND L D. CIT(A), HE OUGHT TO HAVE DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.3,21,000 INSTEAD OF DIRECTING ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE CLAIM AFTER VERIFICATION. 3. THE LD. CIT(A)-V HAS ALSO ERRED IN HOLDING T HAT SINCE GROSS PROFIT ESTIMATION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA S BEEN QUASHED, THE AMOUNT OF EARLIER YEARS EXPENSES OF RS. 1,43,913/- AND PENALTY OF RS.1686/- ARE LIAB LE TO BE ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF YOUR RESPONDENT. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMEN T HAS FILED APPEAL TO HON. TRIBUNAL AGAINST THE DELET ION OF SEC.145(2) AND ESTIMATION OF GROSS PROFIT, YOUR RESPONDENT SUBMITS THAT THE CLAIM OF THE RESPONDENT BE RECONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION THAT T HE HON. TRIBUNAL MAY TAKE IN RESPECT OF THE APPEAL FIL ED BY THE INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT. 6. REGARDING CROSS OBJECTION, LD. AUTHORIZED REPRES ENTATIVE HA NOT PRESSED GROUND NOS. 2 & 3. THE ONLY GROUND REMAINS WITH REGARD TO ESTIMATED G.P. ADDITION AFTER REJECT ING BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN TAKEN CARE BY US WHILE DISMISSING I.T.A. NO. 2926/AHD/2012 & C. O. NO. 43/AHD/2013 FOR A.Y. 2008-09 (ACIT VS. M/S. ANIL & ANIL) PAGE 10 THE APPEAL OF REVENUE AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. ACCORDIN GLY, CROSS OBJECTION IS ALSO DISMISSED. 7. IN RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL AS WELL AS ASSESSEE S CROSS OBJECTION IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 27 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2014. SD/- SD/- (N. S. SAINI) (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER TRUE COPY S.K.SINHA $ $ $ $ &' &' &' &' ('# ('# ('# ('# / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / REVENUE 2. / ASSESSEE 3. -- . / CONCERNED CIT 4. .- / CIT (A) 5. '23 &, , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 367 89 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / $ , :/ - , <