ITO,Ward-2,Murshidabad, Murshidabad V. M/s. Parbati Sankar Nandi, Murshidabad

ITA 1257/KOL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 70444 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-12-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 30-08-2012
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R P NAG
• Assessee Lawyers: S L KOCHAR; ANIL K OCHAR ADVOC

Judgement Text

, B , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH: KOL KATA () BEFORE , /AND , ! ) [BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM & SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM] ' ' ' ' / I.T.A NO. 1257 /KOL/201 2 #$ %& #$ %& #$ %& #$ %&/ // / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 7 -0 8 INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WD- 2 , MURSHIDABAD VS. M/S. PARBATI SANKAR NANDI (PAN: AAGFP8201Q) ()* /APPELLANT ) (+,)*/ RESPONDENT ) DATE OF HEARING: 26.12.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 26.12.2013 FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI R. P. NAG, JCIT, SR. DR. FOR THE RESPONDENT: S/SHRI S. L. KOCHAR & ANIL K OCHAR, ADVOCATES / ORDER PER SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM: THIS APPEAL BY REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDE R OF CIT(A) DATED 18.06.2012 AND PERTAINS TO AY 2007-08. 2. THE ISSUE RAISED IS THAT CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETIN G THE ADDITION MADE BY AO BASED ON HIGHER GROSS PROFIT. 3. IN THIS CASE, THE AO NOTED THAT THE GROSS PROFIT SH OWN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS RS.73,08,465/- I.E. 1.75%. THIS, IN THE OPINION OF AO, WAS VERY LOW IN ASSESSEES LINE OF BUSINESS. THE AO NOTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF H EARING, ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE STOCK REGISTER. HE FURTHER NOTED THAT ASSESSEE CLAIMED L OSS OF GOODS AMOUNTING TO RS.10,80,676/- BUT NO EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED IN THIS REGARD. HE FURTHE R NOTED THAT IN THE DETAILS OF CARRIAGE EXPENSES TRANSPORTERS NAME WAS NOT MENTIONED. FRO M THIS, THE AO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THERE WAS SUSPICION THAT ASSESSEE HAS INFLATED THE EXPENSE TO LOWER DOWN THE ACTUAL PROFIT. HE FURTHER NOTED THAT SOME OF THE PURCHASES WERE FOUND IN CASH. THEREFORE, THE AO REJECTED THE GROSS PROFIT RATE DECLARED BY ASSESSEE AND ESTIMATE D THAT REASONABLE RATE OF GROSS PROFIT WILL BE 2.25%. ACCORDINGLY, AO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.20,8 3,681/-. 3. UPON ASSESSEES APPEAL, CIT(A) NOTED THAT AO ON SUSPICION THAT ASSESSEE MIGHT HAVE INFLATED THE EXPENSES, ESTIMATED GROSS PROFIT @ 2.2 5% AS COMPARED TO @ 1.75% SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. HE NOTED THAT NO MATERIAL FACT AND CIRCU MSTANTIAL EVIDENCES WERE BROUGHT ON RECORD 2 ITA NO. 1257/K/2012 M/S. PARBATI SANKAR NANDI AY:2007-08 TO SHOW THAT EXPENSES HAVE BEEN INFLATED. LD. CIT( A) FURTHER NOTED THAT AO HAS ALSO NOT REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT NOR HE HAS POINTED OU T ANY SPECIFIC DEFECT OR ERROR IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. HENCE, LD. CIT(A) FOUND THAT AO HAS ESTIM ATED THE GP WITHOUT ANY BASIS. HENCE, HE DELETED THE ADDITION IN THIS REGARD. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER, REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFO RE US. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE R ECORDS. WE FIND THAT AO IN THIS CASE HAS REJECTED THE RATE OF GP SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE A ND ESTIMATED ON HIS OWN. HOWEVER, WE NOTE THAT AO HAS NEITHER REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT N OR HE HAS FOUND ANY SPECIFIC DEFECT OR ERROR IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. AO HAS ONLY MADE SUSPICIO N THAT ASSESSEE MIGHT HAVE INFLATED THE EXPENSES. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE AGREE WITH THE LD. CIT(A) THAT NO ADDITION BASED ON CONJECTURES AND SURMISES CAN BE SUSTAINED. HENCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND THE SAME IS HEREBY UPHELD. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 6. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- , , ! (MAHAVIR SINGH) (SHAMIM YAHYA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 26TH DECEMBER, 2013 /0 #12 3 JD.(SR.P.S.) 4 +5 6 5%7- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . )* / APPELLANT ITO, WARD-2, MURSHIDABAD 2 +,)* / RESPONDENT M/S. PARBATI SANKAR NANDI, P.O. & VI LL. DOMKAL, DIST. MURSHIDABAD, PIN-742101. 3 . # ( )/ THE CIT(A), KOLKATA 4. 5. # / CIT KOLKATA 5:; +# / DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA ,5 +/ TRUE COPY, #