Smt. Kantidevi Gupta, SATNA V. ITO,

ITA 119/JAB/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 70112 (ITAT-JABALPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 22-10-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHISHEK SHUKLA
• Assessee Lawyers: CO SATNA; B K NEMA; SUNIL KUMAR NEMA ADV S R NEMA
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH(JM) AND SHRI R.C. SHARMA (AM) I.T.A. NOS.119 & 120./JAB/2010 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2006-07 & 2007-08 SMT. KANTIDEVI GUPTA, PROP. M/S. SATYADEV TRADERS, CHHATARPUR, C/O M/S. S.R.NEMA & CO., RAJDEEP CAMPUS, ADJACENT TO CANARA BANK, REWA ROAD, SATNA (MP VS. ITO, CHHATARPUR, M.P. PAN/GIR NO. : AIDPG 4627 Q APPELLANT) .. RESPONDENT) I.T.A. NOS.123 & 124/JAB/2010 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2006-07 & 2007-08 ITO, CHHATARPUR, M.P VS. SMT. KANTIDEVI GUPTA, PROP. M/S. SATYADEV TRADERS, CHHATARPUR, C/O M/S. S.R.NEMA & CO., RAJDEEP CAMPUS, ADJACENT TO CANARA BANK, REWA ROAD, SATNA (MP) PAN/GIR NO. : AIDPG 4627 Q APPELLANT) .. RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI B.K. NEMA, ADV & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR NEMA, ADV S.R.NEMA & CO., SATNA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ABHISHEK SHUKLA, SR. DR 2 I.T.A. NOS.119 & 120./JAB/2010 I.T.A. NOS.123 & 124/JAB/2010 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2006-07 & 2007-08 DATE OF HEARING : 13/9/20 13 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19 /09/2013 O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA, AM: THESE ARE CROSS APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE RE VENUE AGAINST ORDER OF LD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DA TED 29.9.2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 AND 2007-08. 2. IN THE APPEALS FILED, THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED FOR ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY ESTIMATING PROFIT ON TH E SALES DETERMINED BY THE SALES TAX AUTHORITIES, WHICH WAS FINALLY DELETE D BY THE SALES TAX APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED FOR REDUCTION OF NET PROFIT RATE BY LD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FRO M 5% TO 3.5%. 3. FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN SELLING OF SUGAR. THERE WAS INFORMATION WITH THE DEPARTMENT THAT ASSE SSEE WAS UNDERTAKING BENAMI TRANSACTION IN THE NAME OF NARAY AN GUPTA. THE INSPECTOR ALSO DEPUTED TO ENQUIRE ABOUT THE MATTER . THE INSPECTOR REPORTED THAT COMMERCIAL DEPARTMENT HAD CARRIED OUT A SURVEY IN THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 29.12.2006 AFTER COMPL AINT OF TAX EVASION. 3 I.T.A. NOS.119 & 120./JAB/2010 I.T.A. NOS.123 & 124/JAB/2010 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2006-07 & 2007-08 STATEMENT OF NARAYAN GUPTA WAS ALSO RECORDED, WHERE IN, HE HAS STATED THAT IN HIS NAME BANK ACCOUNTS WERE OPENED BY SONU GUPTA. HE HAS SIGNED THE BLANK CHEQUES AND SAME WERE WITH SONU G UPTA WHO OPERATES HIS ACCOUNT. THEREAFTER, ASSESSMENTS FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE OPENED BY ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S.148. IN TH E ASSESSMENT SO FRAMED, SALES WERE TAKEN AS PER THE SALES DETERMINE D BY THE SALES TAX AUTHORITY. ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND HELD THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT RECORDED SALES CORRECTLY. ON THE SALES SO DETERMINED BY THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION, ASSESSING OFFICER APPLIED 5% NET PRO FIT RATE TO WORK OUT PROFIT ON THESE SALES. BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER, LD C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) UPHELD THE SALES TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TAKE NET PROF IT RATE OF 3.5% IN PLACE OF PROFIT OF 5%, INTER ALIA, OBSERVING AS UNDER: ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN THE SALES OF THE APPELL ANTS FIRM AS ASSESSED BY SALES TAX AUTHORITIES VIDE ORDER DATED 10.12.2008. THE SAME HAS BEEN PASSED ON THE BASIS OF IRREGULARITIES AND TAX EVASI ON DETECTED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY ON 29.12.2006 WHICH IS MENTIONED I N THE REPORT DATED 22.5.2007 OF ASST. SALES TAX OFFICER, NOWGAON. THE SAID ORDERS DATED 10.12.2008 PASSED BY THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF SALE S/TRADE TAD, SATNA HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE BY ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF TRADE/SALES TAX, INDORE VIDE ORDER DATED 20.7.2009 ON THE GROUND OF VERIFICATION OF FA CTS PERTAINING TO SHRI NARAYAN GUPTA. HOWEVER, IT HAS ALSO BEEN ADMITTED THAT THE APPELLANTS FIRM 4 I.T.A. NOS.119 & 120./JAB/2010 I.T.A. NOS.123 & 124/JAB/2010 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2006-07 & 2007-08 IS INDEED FOUND ENGAGED IN UNDISCLOSED TRANSACTIONS ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENTS IMPOUNDED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY DT. 29.12.2006. THUS, IN MY VIEW, ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT AND IS JUSTIFIED IN COMPUTING THE INCOME ON THE BASIS OF TRANSACTIONS CARRIED OUT BY THE APPELLANT FIRM THROUGH BANK ACCO UNT IN STATE BAN K OF INDORE AND ALLAHABAD BANK. HOWEVER, SINCE THE APPE LLANT HAS DECLARED NET PROFIT RATE OF 3.56%, 3.52% & 1.7% FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEARS 2005-06, 2006- 07 & 2007-08, ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO COMP UTE THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT BY TAKING 3.5% AS NET PROFIT OF THE APPEL LANT ON THE TURNOVER/SALES ASSESSED BY HIM FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 & 2007-08 UNDER APPEAL. 4. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER OF LD COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (APPEALS), BOTH ASSESSEE AND REVENUE ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. IT WAS URGED BY LD A.R. THAT SALE HAS BEEN ESTIM ATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF SALES TAX ASSESSM ENT ORDER PASSED BY THE SALES TAX AUTHORITY. HOWEVER, BOTH THESE ORDER S WERE STRUCK OFF BY THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAX, SATNA VIDE ORDER DATED 13.12.2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND ORDER DA TED 7.9.2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. AS PER LD A.R., SINCE THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED SALES WAS PURELY BASED ON THE SALES TAX ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHICH WAS FINALLY KNOCKED OFF BY THE FINAL A UTHORITY, SALES SO TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD BE IGNORED AND SALE S FINALLY TAKEN BY THE SALES TAX APPELLATE AUTHORITY SHOULD BE TAKEN THE B ASIS FOR COMPUTING THE NET PROFIT EARNED ON SUCH SALES. HE INVITED OUR AT TENTION TO THE 5 I.T.A. NOS.119 & 120./JAB/2010 I.T.A. NOS.123 & 124/JAB/2010 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2006-07 & 2007-08 RESPECTIVE ORDERS PASSED BY THE SALES TAX APPELLATE AUTHORITY, WHEREIN, ENHANCEMENT OF THE SALES MADE BY THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER WAS KNOCKED OFF. AS PER LD A.R. THAT ALL THE INFORMATI ON WAS GATHERED BEHIND BACK OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS AGAINST PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. HE REFERRED TO THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE, AS PER WHICH, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS ALSO DENIED HAVING DONE ANY TRANSACTION IN OTHER NAME. FURTHER CONTENTION OF L D A.R. IS AS UNDER: 1. NO PERSON WITH 20 YEARS OF UNBLEMISHED RECORD WILL CARRY OUT SUCH ACTIVITY.. 2. THE PERSON NARAYAN GUPTA WAS NOT KNOWN TO THE AS SESSEE. 3. THE BANK ACCOUNTS, IN QUESTION, WERE IN THE NAM E OF NARAYAN GUPTA AND NOT THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE SURVEY OF COMMERCIAL TAX DEPT AND ORDER OF ASST COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER STOOD SET ASIDE BY UPPER COMMISSIONER F OR WANT OF PROOFS AND LACK OF OPPORTUNITIES TO THE ASSESSEE. THE AO'S ASSESSMENT IS BASED ON THE ORDER OF ASST COMMISSIONER WHICH WAS N ONEXISTENT. 5. NOT A SINGLE DOCUMENT OR PROOF WAS EVER FOUND OR SEIZED BY COMMERCIAL TAX SURVEY TEAM TO PROVE THAT ASSESSEE W AS EVER INVOLVED IN THE BENAMI TRANSACTIONS THROUGH THE ACCOUNTS OF NARAYAN GUPTA. 6. HAD THE ASSESSEE BEEN INVOLVED IN ANY SUCH SORT OF ACTIVITIES OF BUSINESS; AT LEAST SOME DOCUMENTS COULD HAVE BEEN D EFINITELY FOUND AT HER BUSINESS PLACE OR HOUSE. 6 I.T.A. NOS.119 & 120./JAB/2010 I.T.A. NOS.123 & 124/JAB/2010 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2006-07 & 2007-08 7. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT KNOW NARAYAN GUPTA AT ALL, HENCE NO SUCH AUTHORITY WAS EVER GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. 8. NARAYAN GUPTA WAS A KNOWN ENTITY WITH BROKERS A ND SUGAR MILL STAFF AND HAD DONE BUSINESS ON HIS OWN FOR HIS OWN BENEFI TS. HE WAS KNOWN TO SUGAR MILL REPRESENTATIVES FOR A LONG, BUT NOT T HE ASSESSEE. 9. THE DOCUMENTS AND EVIDENCES DO NOT SUGGEST THAT THE BUSINESS WAS DONE BY THE ASSESSEE HERSELF OR THROUGH HER AUTHORI ZED REPRESENTATIVE. 10. THE PROCEDURE OF SUGAR TRADE DEPENDED HEAVILY O N THE BROKERS BUT NO BROKER WAS EVER CALLED TO GIVE INFORMATION. 11. THE SUGAR MILL REPRESENTATIVES KNEW ONLY NARAYA N GUPTA AND NOT THE ASSESSEE WHICH MEANS THAT THIS PERSON VIZ. NARA YAN GUPTA HAS IMPOSED ON THEM THAT HE IS THE OWNER OF SATYA DEV T RADERS AND NOT THE ASSESSEE. 12. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY LETTER IN FAVOUR OF NARAYAN GUPTA OR THE BROKERS FOR DESPATCH OF SUGAR WHICH WAS UNDE R GOVT'S QUOTA SYSTEM. 13. THE BILLS , CHALLANS , RECEIPTS , COPIES OF DD' S WERE ALL SUCH DOCUMENTS WHICH COULD BE PROCURED BY ANY PERSON ON ANY OTHERS NAME. THEY COULD NOT BE SAID PROOFS TO HOLD THAT TH E ASSESSEE WAS ANYWAY ENGAGED IN THE DEALINGS. ON THE CONTRARY THE ASSESSEE HERSELF POINTED OUT THAT FRAUD HAD BEEN PERPETRATED AGAINST HER. 14. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE FORM S OF TRANSPORTING THE MATERIAL WERE FORGED ONES BUT NO COGNIZANCE OF THE SAME WAS TAKEN. 7 I.T.A. NOS.119 & 120./JAB/2010 I.T.A. NOS.123 & 124/JAB/2010 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2006-07 & 2007-08 15. IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED BY AO OF MR HASAN AGH A, REPRESENTATIVE OF SEKSARIAN BISWAN SUGAR MILLS THE PERSON DENIED H AVING EVER MET, HEARD OR KNOWN SMT KANTI DEVI GUPTA ( THE APPELLANT ) . HE KNEW ONLY NARAYAN GUPTA FOR A LONG . AS PER AO HIMSELF THE SA ID NARAYAN GUPTA WORKED FOR THE ASSESSEE ONLY FOR THE PERIOD FROM JU LY -AUG 2005 TO MARCH 2006 MEANING THEREBY THAT NARAYAN GUPTA WAS D OING THIS TYPE OF BUSINESS PRIOR TO THIS PERIOD ALSO OTHERWISE HOW AND WHY SHOULD NARAYAN GUPTA BE KNOWN TO SUCH PERSON FOR A LONG 16. A) THE AUTHORITIES BELOW FAILED TO TAKE INTO AC COUNT THE STATEMENT OF MR NARESH AGRAWAL PROP. INDIAN ENTERPRISES RECOR DED ON 29.12.2006 WHICH CLEARLY GAVE THE ACCOUNT OF CLANDESTINE ACTIV ITIES OF SOME SONU PRASAD GUPTA S/O MALLU LAL GUPTA AND RAMESH AGRAWAL WHO WERE CARRYING OUT SUCH BUSINESSES BY TAKING ADVANTAGES O F CLOSED BUSINESS ENTERPRISES, USING THEIR FORMS ISSUED TO THEM BY CO MMERCIAL TAX AUTHORITIES FOR INTERSTATE TRANSFER OF GOODS. B) IN THIS STATEMENT NARESH AGRAWAL GAVE ACCOUNT OF HOW HE WAS APPROACHED BY SONU PRASAD GUPTA S/O MALLU LAL GUPTA RESIDENT OF GANJWALE CHATARPUR, AND GAVE HIM FORM NO 88 FOR TRA NSPORTATION OF MATERIAL FROM OTHER STATE. APPELLANT'S SON IS NILEN DRA GUPTA S/O SWAMIDEEN GUPTA RESIDENT OF HATWARA, CHHATARPUR. C) THIS SHOWS THAT THIS PERSON NARESH AGRAWAL WAS A PPROACHED BY SOMEONE WITH THE NAME OF SONU PRASAD GUPTA S/O MALL U LAL GUPTA RESIDENT OF GANJWALE TO WHOM HE GAVE THE FORMS ETC. THE APPELLANT IS TOTALLY UNAWARE ABOUT ALL THIS HAPPENINGS AND WHO T HESE PERSONS ARE. IRONICALLY THIS STATEMENT HAD COME TO THE NOTICE OF THE APPELLANT WHEN SHE PROCURED THE COPIES OF SUBMISSIONS MADE BY AO B EFORE CIT(A). 8 I.T.A. NOS.119 & 120./JAB/2010 I.T.A. NOS.123 & 124/JAB/2010 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2006-07 & 2007-08 17. THE CIT(A) ALSO DID NOT PROVIDE ANY OF THE DOCU MENTS CONTAINED IN ANNEXURE I TO IV TO THE APPELLANT TO PUT UP HER DEF ENCE. AS HAS BEEN STATED ABOVE THE AO HAD SUBMITTED FOUR VOLUMES OF P APERS ( ANNEXURE I TO IV ) BEFORE THE CIT(A) ALONGWITH HIS SUBMISSIO N AGAINST APPELLANT'S REJOINDER. NOT EVEN A SINGLE PIECE OF PAPER WAS SHO WN OR COPIES WERE SUPPLIED TO THE APPELLANT FOR REBUTTAL. 18. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW CONCEALED ALL THE EVIDENC ES GATHERED AND EXPECTED FROM APPELLANT TO PUT UP HER DEFENCE. MANY OF THE DOCUMENTS GATHERED AND SUBMITTED BY AO HAVE OVERWRITING AND A PPLICATION OF WHITE FLUID AND PREPARED THEM IN THE NAME OF THE AP PELLANT TO SUIT AO'S CAPRICIOUS INTENTIONS AND SUCH MALPRACTICE AS VERIF IED BY AO IS UNKNOWN TO JURISPRUDENCE. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD D.R. RELIED ON ORDER OF AS SESSING OFFICER AND CONTENDED THAT LD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REDUCING THE NET PROFIT RATE FROM 5% T O 3.5%. HE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE REJECTED, THE ASSE SSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN APPLYING THE NET PROFIT RATE AT 5% AND WITHOUT GIVING ANY REASON LD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS REDUCED THE NET PROFIT TO 3.5% AND REQUESTED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND CAR EFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FOUND FROM RECORD THAT 9 I.T.A. NOS.119 & 120./JAB/2010 I.T.A. NOS.123 & 124/JAB/2010 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2006-07 & 2007-08 ASSESSEE IS CARRYING ON BUSINESS OF PURCHASE AND SA LE OF SUGAR. THERE WAS SURVEY AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 10.12.2008 BY ASST. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAX, IN WHICH THE PURCHASES MADE BY BUSINESSMAN FROM SEKSARIA BISWAN SUGAR FACTORY, SIT APUR WERE HELD TO HAVE BEEN DONE BY THE ASSESSEE AND SALES WERE CONSI DERED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. AS A RESULT OF SALES TAX SURVEY, SALES WAS DETERMINED AT RS.5.23 CRORES AND RS.85.60 LAKHS FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEARS 2006-07 AND 2007-08, RESPECTIVELY AS AGAINST ACTUAL SALE OF RS.28,70,240/- AND RS.29,96,970/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 AND 200 7-08, RESPECTIVELY. BY REJECTING BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, ASSESSING OFFICER HA S TAKEN THE SALES AS DETERMINED BY THE SALES TAX AUTHORITIES AND AFTER A PPLYING 5% NET PROFIT RATE MADE ADDITION IN ASSESSEES HANDS. LD COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER WITH RESPECT TO THE SALES TAKEN BY HIM ON THE BASIS OF SALES TAX AU THORITIES ORDER, HOWEVER, HAS REDUCED THE NET PROFIT RATE FROM 5% TO 3.5%. AGGRIEVED, BOTH ASSESSEE AND REVENUE ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 8. THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT ASSESSING O FFICER HAS COMPUTED NET PROFIT ON THE SALES DETERMINED BY THE SALES TAX AUTHORITIES IN CONSEQUENCE OF SURVEY AND APPLIED NE T PROFIT THEREON. LD 10 I.T.A. NOS.119 & 120./JAB/2010 I.T.A. NOS.123 & 124/JAB/2010 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2006-07 & 2007-08 A.R. PLACED ON RECORD THE ORDER OF ADDL. COMMISSION ER OF COMMERCIAL TAX DATED 13.12.2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AN D ORDER DATED 7.9.2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, WHEREIN, ENTI RE ADDITION MADE BY THE SALES TAX OFFICER HAS BEEN STRUCK-OFF. THE ADD L. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAX, SATNA HAS DETERMINED THE ASSESSEES SALES AS SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AMOUNTING TO RS.28,70,240/- FO R ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND RS.29,96,970/- IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. THE WHOLE EXERCISE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR TAK ING HIGHER SALES IS BASED ON THE SURVEY CONDUCTED BY THE SALES TAX DEPA RTMENT. HOWEVER, WHEN THE SALES TAX ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF HAS BEEN STRUCK OFF BY THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAX, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON FOR TAKING SALES AS DETERMINED BY THE SALES TAX OFFICER. THE SALES TAKEN BY THE SALES TAX OFFICER HAS BEEN STRUCK OFF BY THE COMMIS SIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAX, ACCORDINGLY, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER TO TAKE THE SALES AS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCO UNT WHICH HAS BEEN UPHELD BY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAX IN PLACE O F SALES DETERMINED BY SALES TAX OFFICER WHICH HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER AS THE BASIS FOR COMPUTING PROFIT. SO FAR AS APPLICAT ION OF NET PROFIT RATE IS CONCERNED, WE FOUND THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REAS ONABLY APPLIED NET PROFIT RATE AT 5% KEEPING IN VIEW THE NATURE AND VO LUME OF ASSESSEES 11 I.T.A. NOS.119 & 120./JAB/2010 I.T.A. NOS.123 & 124/JAB/2010 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2006-07 & 2007-08 BUSINESS. HOWEVER, WITHOUT GIVING ANY REASON, LD C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS REDUCED THE NET PROFIT FRO M 5% TO 3.5%. HENCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION IN THIS PAR T OF LD CIT (A)S ORDER. KEEPING IN VIEW THE ENTIRETY OF FACTS AND I N THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER WITH THE DIRECTION TO COMPUTE THE ASSESSEES INCOME BY TAKIN G 5% NET PROFIT RATE ON SALES FINALLY DETERMINED BY THE ADDL. COMMISSION ER OF COMMERCIAL TAX IN HIS ORDERS DATED 13.12.2010 FOR ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2006-07 AND DATED 7.9.2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. ASSESS EE IS DIRECTED TO PLACE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER BOTH THE ORDERS OF ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAX. WE DIRECT ACCORDIN GLY. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS FILED BY REVENUE ARE ALLO WED AND THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED IN PART IN THE TE RMS INDICATED HEREIN ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20 TH SEPTEMBER, 2013. SD/- SD/- (JOGINDER SINGH) (R.C.SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JABALPUR DATED 19 / 09/2013 12 I.T.A. NOS.119 & 120./JAB/2010 I.T.A. NOS.123 & 124/JAB/2010 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2006-07 & 2007-08 B.K.PARIDA, SR. PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT : SMT. KANTIDEVI GUPTA,PROP. M/S. SATYADEV TRADERS, CHHATARPUR,C/O M/S. S.R.NEMA & CO., RAJDEEP CAMPUS, ADJACENT TO CANARA BANK, REWA ROAD, SATNA (MP 2. / THE RESPONDENT.: ITO, CHHATARPUR, M.P. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. / CIT CONCERNED 5. , , / DR, ITAT, JABALPUR 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY,ITAT CAMP AT JABALPUR