Sadashiv Narhari Navale, Nashik V. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax,

ITA 138/PUN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9199 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 20-02-2018
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 30-01-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR VIVEK AGGARWAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Retraction; Documents seized

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE . , , BEFORE SHRI D.KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM . / ITA NOS.138 AND 139/PUN/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2008-09 AND 2009-10 ALKA SADASHIV NAWALE, LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SADASHIV NARHARI NAVALE, 11, SWASTIK CHAMBERS, MUMBAI AGRA ROAD, PATHARDI PHATA, NASHIK 422 010 . /APPELLANT PAN : ACUPN0656R VS. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, NASHIK . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : SHRI PRAMOD SHINGTE / RESPONDENT BY : DR. VIVEK AGGARWAL, CIT-DR / DATE OF HEARING : 21.02.2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 28.02.2018 / ORDER PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM : THERE ARE 2 APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER CONSIDE RATION INVOLVING ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 AND 2009-10. THEY A RE FILED AGAINST TWO SEPARATE ORDERS OF CIT(A)-2, NASHIK COMMONLY DATED 03-11-2014. 2. WE SHALL TAKE UP APPEAL-WISE ADJUDICATION IN THE FOLLOWIN G PARAGRAPHS. ITA NO.138/PUN/2015 (A.Y. 2008-09) 3. AT THE OUTSET, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT OUR ATTENTION TO THE CONCISE GROUNDS FOR THE A.Y. 2008-09 AND THE SAM E ARE EXTRACTED AS UNDER : 2 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE ERRED IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.10,99,378/- BY ESTIMATING THE NET PROFIT @20.52% BY DISREGARDING A PPELLANT CONTENTION AND FURTHER ERRED IN REJECTING APPELLANT PROFIT DEC LARED @8%, THE ADDITION MADE BY LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER MAY KINDLY BE DEL ETED AND INCOME DECLARED IN RETURN OF INCOME MAY KINDLY BE ACCEPTED . 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ADDIT ION OF RS.60,00,000/- BEING ALLEGED INITIAL INVESTMENT IN THE PROJECT ASS UMED @10% OF WIP, SAME NEEDS TO BE STRUCK DOWN AS IT IS WITHOUT ANY E VIDENCES/BASIS OR ANY SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS, ESPECIALLY WHEN INCOME OF THE APPELLANT IS ESTIMATED. 4. BRIEFLY STATED RELEVANT FACTS CULLED OUT FROM THE ORDERS OF THE AO/CIT(A) FOR A.Y. 2008-09 INCLUDE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL ENGAGED IN THE ACTIVITIES OF BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT OF LAND /FLATS. THERE WAS SURVEY OPERATION U/S.133A OF THE ACT ON 29-0 3-2011. THE SURVEY ACTION REVEALED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAINT AIN ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND NO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS WERE BEING DRAWN ON REGULAR BASIS BASED ON THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE SURVEY TEAM DISCOV ERED A ROUGH NOTES WHICH CONSTITUTES PRIMARY RECORDS FOR MAKING OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE SURVEY ALSO RESULTED IN THE DISCOVERY OF NO N-FILING OF THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y. 2008-09. THIS IS THE YEAR WH ERE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY OF A PROJECT NAMED M/S. S.P. DEVELOP ERS AND BUILDERS HAS COMMENCED. THE FACTS REGARDING THIS CONST RUCTION ACTIVITY INCLUDE THAT THE ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO A DEVELOP MENT AGREEMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT OF LAND OWNED BY SHRI KHOPADE. THE AGR EEMENT INVOLVES CONSTRUCTION OF BUNGALOWS AT THE COST OF THE AS SESSEE AND TO HANDOVER 17 OF THE CONSTRUCTED BUNGALOWS TO KHOPADE, W HO IS THE OWNER OF THE LAND ON WHICH SAID PROJECT WAS CONSTRUCTED . RESULTANTLY, THE ASSESSEES SHARE COMES TO 41 BUNGALOWS. SURVEY ACTION ALSO RESULTED IN DECLARATION OF ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.1.55 CRORES FOR A.YRS. 2008-09 TO 2011-12 BASED ON THE NUMBER OF BUNGALOWS S OLD BY THE ASSESSEE. AT THE TIME OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME FOR THES E ASSESSMENT YEARS, ASSESSEE OFFERED THE NET INCOME @ 8% OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS WHICH 3 AMOUNTS TO RETRACTION OF THE ABOVE SAID DISCLOSURE OF ADD ITIONAL INCOME. ASSESSEE DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE DECLARATION OF RS.1.55 CR ORES. HOWEVER, IGNORING THE PROFITS DISCLOSED IN THE RETURNS, IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO ADOPTED THE SAID DECLARE D AMOUNT OF RS.1.55 CRORES, I.E. 20.52% OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF RS.7.55 CR ORES AND STAGGERED THE SAME AMONG THE 4 ASSESSMENT YEARS (SUP RA). THE DETAILS OF GROSS RECEIPTS ARE GIVEN AS UNDER : A.Y. GROSS RECEIPTS FOUND DURING SURVEY 2008-09 RS.88,17,000/- 2009-10 RS.5,02,50,000/- 2010-11 RS.35,93,000/- 2011-12 RS.1,28,46,000/- TOTAL RS.7,55,06,000/- 5. THE INCOME TO BE BROUGHT TO TAX FOR THE A.Y. 2008-09 WORKS OUT TO RS.10,99,378/- AS PER THE DISCUSSION GIVEN BY THE AO IN P ARA NO. 5.3 OF HIS ORDER. THE SAID AMOUNT IS ARRIVED AT APPLYING THE FLAT NET PROFIT RATE OF 20.52% OF THE TURNOVER OF THAT YEAR. FROM THE TABLE M ENTIONED ABOVE, THE GROSS TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ALL 41 BUN GALOWS WORKS OUT TO RS.7.55 CRORES (ROUNDED OFF). BASED ON THE NUMBE R OF BUNGALOWS SOLD IN EACH YEAR, VALUE OF THE BUNGALOWS SOLD FOR A.Y. 2008- 09 COMES TO RS.88,17,000/-. THE NET PROFIT @ 20.52% ON RS.88,17,000/ - COMES TO RS.10,99,378/-. RELEVANT LINES FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER ARE EXTRACTED AS UNDER : 5.3 AS THE ASSESSEE HAS ONLY PRODUCED THE AUDIT REP ORT NOT CONTAINING ANY LEDGERS, P&L ACCOUNT, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO COM PUTE ACTUAL PROFIT AND LOSS. THE ASSESSEE HAS ESTIMATED HIS N.P. AT 8.05% FOR WHICH HE HAS PRODUCED NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES, NO DETAILS OF EX PENSES, NO LEDGERS. THUS, THE ESTIMATION OF N.P. BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT BASED ON FACTS. THERE IS NO WORKING OF P&L ACCOUNT. THE N.P. IS ONLY ON ESTIMATION AND HENCE NOT ACCEPTABLE. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY REASON AS TO WHY HIS N.P. SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AT 8.05% AND NOT AT 2 0.52% AS DECLARED DURING THE SURVEY. HENCE, THE N.P.% DECLARED DURIN G THE SURVEY IS CONSIDERED AS THE N.P.% FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDER ATION. ACCORDINGLY, RS.18,09,968/- (88,17,000 X 20.52%) IS CONSIDERED A S THE NET PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE AND AMOUNT OF RS.10,99,378/- (18,09,96 8 7,10,590) IS ADDED IN THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE.. . . . . . . 4 THUS, THE AO REDUCED THE INCOME RETURNED BY THE ASSES SEE BEFORE THE DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT S UBSEQUENT A.YRS. 2010-11 AND 2011-12 ARE PENDING FOR DISPOSAL BEFO RE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 6. SAME IS THE METHOD ADOPTED BY THE AO IN MAKING ADDITI ON OF RS.1,03,15,405/- FOR THE A.Y. 2009-10. 7. FURTHER, AO ALSO ADDED THE SUM OF RS.60 LAKHS IN THE A.Y . 2008- 09 TOWARDS INITIAL INVESTMENT IN THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY. ACCORDING TO THE AO, OUT OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF RS.7.55 CRORES WHICH RESULTED IN INCOME OF RS.1.55 CRORES, THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION SHOULD B E AROUND RS.6 CRORES. AO ESTIMATED 10% OF THE SAID COST OF CONSTR UCTION AS THE INITIAL INVESTMENT BY THE ASSESSEE CONSIDERING THE FACT THA T THE SOURCES WERE EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. AS PER THE DISCUSSION BY THE AO IN PARA NO. 6.2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, AO ESTIMATED THE S AID COST OF INITIAL INVESTMENT AT RS.60,00,600/-, I.E. 10% OF THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION. CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND UPHELD BOTH THE ADDITIONS, I.E. (1) ESTIMATION OF PROFITS APPLYING RATE OF 20.52% ON TOTAL TURNOVER AS WELL AS (2) INITIAL INVESTMENT IN THE CON STRUCTION ACTIVITY. 8. AGGRIEVED WITH THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL WITH THE CONCISE GROUND REFERRED ABOVE. 9. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE ABOVE FACTS OF THE CASE AND SUBMITTED THAT THE AO ERRED IN ESTIMATING THE PROFITS @20.52% IGNORING THE ESTIMATED INCOME OFFERED IN RETURN ADOPTING TH E PROFIT RATE OF 8% OF THE TURNOVER. AS PER THE ASSESSEE, SUCH ESTIMA TION NEEDS TO BE HONOURED WHEN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE NOT MAINTAINED. ADMITTIN G THE 5 FACTS THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE NEVER MAINTAINED BY TH E ASSESSEE AND EXPLAINING THE FACT THAT THE PROJECT RUN INTO LOTS OF TRO UBLES WHICH RESULTED IN LOWER RETURNS ON THE VENTURE, LD. COUNSEL SUB MITTED THAT ADOPTING THE RATE OF 20.52% IS ON VERY HIGH SIDE. MENTIONIN G VARIOUS CASE LAWS OF THE PUNE BENCH AND OTHERS, LD. COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT PROFIT RATE OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE @8% O F THE TURNOVER MAY BE AFFIRMED BY THE TRIBUNAL. HOWEVER, HE SUBMITTED TH AT ADOPTING THE FLAT RATE OF 20.52% IS NEVER THERE IN THIS LINE OF BUSINES S ACTIVITY AND REQUESTED FOR SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTION IN THE SAME. FURTHER , REFERRING TO THE ADMISSION OF RS.1.55 CRORES BY THE ASSESSEE DURING TH E SURVEY ACTION, LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID FIGURE LACKS ANY CREDIBILITY AND LEAVEALONE ANY INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS SEIZED BY THE DEPARTMENT DURING THE SURVEY ACTION. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE AO AND THE CIT(A) ON THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE DU RING SURVEY ACTION ADOPTING THE FIGURE OF RS.1.55 CRORES IS NOT SUSTAINA BLE IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING EVIDENCES AGAINST THE ASSESSE E. ON THE ABOVE SAID LOGIC, LD. COUNSEL PRAYED FOR REDUCING THE GROSS PROFIT RATE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 10. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE DUTIFULLY RE LIED HEAVILY ON THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED TH AT THIS IS THE CASE WHERE TURNOVERS HAS EXCEEDED THE STATUTORY LIMITS FOR ADOPTING THE SAID FLAT RATE OF 8% AS NET PROFIT. THESE PROFIT RATES ARE APPLICABLE TO SMALL TURNOVER CASES AND NOT TO THIS CASE WHEN THE PRO JECTS TOTAL TURNOVER IS IN THE RANGE OF RS.7.55 CRORES. HE ALSO SUBMIT TED THAT THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE SUO MOTU OFFERED THE SAME AT RS.1.55 CRORES AS INCOME ON THE PROJECT AND THE AO MERELY APPORTIONED T HE SAID INCOME BASING ON THE SUSTAINABLE ADDITIONS OF YEAR-WISE TURNOVER . FURTHER, HE HIGHLIGHTED THE UNDISPUTED FACT OF NON-MAINTENANCE OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER DISCREPANCIES/STATEMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE. 6 11. WE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES ON THIS ISSUE AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AND THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BEFORE US. T HERE IS NO DISPUTE ON THE BASIC FACTS ABOUT NON-MAINTENANCE OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, NON-FILING OF THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y. 2008 -09 ONWARDS AT THE TIME WHEN SURVEY ACTION WAS CONDUCTED IN THE MONTH OF MARCH, 2011 AND OFFER OF ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.1.55 CRORES, I.E . AT THE RATE OF 20.52% OF THE GROSS TURNOVER OF THIS VENTURE. FURTHER NO SPECIFIC DOCUMENT IS REFERRED TO BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THEIR ORDERS REGARDING THE EXISTENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING PAPERS IN SUPPORT OF RETRACTION OF DISCLOSURE OF RS.1.55 CRORES FOR TH E ENTIRE PROJECT CONSTRUCTING 58 BUNGALOWS. THEREFORE, WE HAVE T O EXAMINE THE SANCTITY OF THE SAID SUM OF RS.1.55 CRORES. ON PERUSAL OF THE RECORDS, IT IS REASONABLE TO INFER THAT THE FIGURE OF RS.1.55 CRORES IS N OT SACROSANCT. NEVERTHELESS, THE PROJECT INVOLVES EARNING OF INCOME AND T HE SAME MAY BE SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 8% AS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE AN D 20.52% ADOPTED BY THE AO. WE ARE ALSO AWARE OF THE FACT THAT IN THIS LINE OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY THE MAXIMUM NET PROFIT IS AROUND 12. 5% OF THE TURNOVER OF THE ORDER. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THA T THE DECISION OF AO AND THE CIT(A) ADOPTING THE FIGURE OF 20.52% IS NOT APPR OVED. CONSEQUENTLY, WE DIRECT THE AO TO ESTIMATE THE PROFITS OF THE PROJECT APPLYING THE RATE OF 12.5% OF THE YEARLY TURNOVER. ACCO RDINGLY, THE CONCISE GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 12. REGARDING THE SECOND ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE R ELATING TO ADDITION OF RS.60 LAKHS RAISED IN CONCISE GROUND NO.2, WE HAV E ALREADY NARRATED THE FACTS LEADING TO THE ARRIVAL OF ADDITION OF R S.60,00,600/- (NOT RS.60 LAKHS AS MENTIONED IN THE CONCISE GROUND). IN THIS REGARD, ARGUMENT OF THE LD. COUNSEL INCLUDES THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN AGRICULTURIST AND OWNS HUGE TRACK OF LAND. ASSESSEE EARN S AGRICULTURAL 7 INCOME AND THE SAID INCOME CONSTITUTES INITIAL INVESTMENT FOR THE PROJECT UNDER CONSIDERATION. THIS IS THE MAJOR PROJECT UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT ESTIMATION @10% OF THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AS INITIAL INVESTMENT IS AGAIN LINKED TO THE PRO JECT TURNOVER OF RS.7.55 CRORES WHICH IS MERELY A PIGMENT OF IMAGINATION. F URTHER, LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS AGRICULTURAL INCOME, NO SEPARATE/INDEPENDENT ADDITION IS CALLED FOR ON AC COUNT OF INITIAL INVESTMENT. HOWEVER, IN RESPONSE TO THE QUERY FROM THE BENCH ON THE EXISTENCE OF EVIDENCE IN THIS REGARD, LD. COUNSEL SU BMITTED FOR GRANT OF TIME TO FURNISH THE SAME. 13. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A). HE ALSO MENTIONED THAT FACTS ABOU T THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND DECLARATION OF THE SAME IN THE RETU RNS OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE PAST WERE NOT BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE AO AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HE ALSO SUBMIT TED ASSESSEE NEVER BORROWED FUNDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF INITIAL INVESTMENT . THEREFORE, IT IS REASONABLE TO PRESUME THAT THE INITIAL INVESTMENT IS FROM UNACCOUNTED SOURCES. THIS IS THE CORRECT ESTIMATION BAS ED ON WHICH THE ADDITION CAN BE MADE BY THE AO. THEREFORE, ADDITION O F @10% OF THE COST OF THE PROJECT AS INITIAL INVESTMENT SHOULD BE SU STAINED. NEVERTHELESS, ON THE ISSUE OF EARNING OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME , LD. DR HAS NOTHING TO SAY AS THIS IS A NEW ARGUMENT FROM THE LD. C OUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 14. WE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES ON THIS ISSUE AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AND THE FACTS PLACED BEFORE US. WE HAVE ALS O CONSIDERED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS GIVEN BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THE ASSESSEE OWNS AGRICULTURAL LAND. C ONSEQUENTLY THE CLAIM OF EARNING OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME IS A BI-PRODUCT IN CASE OF ANY 8 ASSESSEE. THIS FACT WAS TOTALLY UNATTENDED TO BY BOTH THE PARTIES DURING THE ASSESSMENT/APPEAL PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE AO AND TH E CIT(A). WE HAVE ALSO CALLED FOR THE EVIDENCES, IF ANY, IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURNS OF INCO ME. WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. INSTEAD OF DISMISSING THE SA ID CLAIM, WE FIND IT RELEVANT TO GRANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSES SEE TO FILE THE EVIDENCES. ACCORDINGLY, THIS PART OF THE CLAIM IS ALLOWED STA TISTICAL PURPOSES. AO SHALL ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES IF ANY ON THIS ISSUE AND VERIFY THE CLAIM AS PER THE SET PROCEDURE AND ADJU DICATE THE ISSUE AFTER GRANTING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO T HE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ISSUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 15. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO.139/PUN/2015 (A.Y. 2009-10) 16. THE ONLY CONCISE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS UNDE R : ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE ERRED IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS. 62,54,705/- BY ESTIMATING THE NET PROFIT @20.52% BY DISREGARDING A PPELLANT CONTENTION AND FURTHER ERRED IN REJECTING APPELLANT PROFIT DEC LARED @8%, THE ADDITION MADE BY LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER MAY KINDLY BE DEL ETED AND INCOME DECLARED IN RETURN OF INCOME MAY KINDLY BE ACCEPTED . 17. THE ABOVE EXTRACTED CONCISE GROUND REVOLVES AROUND PROPER ESTIMATION OF THE NET PROFIT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 18. IT WAS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT THE SUBMISSIONS M ADE BY THE PARTIES ARE IDENTICAL TO THE ONE ALREADY ADJUDICATED BY U S IN CONNECTION WITH APPEAL ITA NO.138/PUN/2015 FOR THE A.Y. 2008-09. 9 19. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE FIND, IN THAT APPEAL, WE HAVE ALREADY DISMISSED BOTH THE PROFIT RATE OF 8% ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE PROFIT RATE OF 20.52% ADOPTED BY THE AO. FU RTHER, WE HAVE DIRECTED THE AO TO ADOPT 12.5% AS NET PROFIT OF THE TURN OVER OF IN THAT YEAR. IN OUR VIEW, WE FIND NO REASON TO DEVIATE FROM THE SAME FOR THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR ALSO. ACCORDINGLY, WITH SIMILAR DIRECTIONS WE PARTLY ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 20. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 21. TO SUM UP, ITA NO.138/PUN/2015 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND ITA NO.139/PUN/2015 FILE D BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 28 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2018. SD/- SD/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) /JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE; DATED : 28 TH FEBRUARY, 2018 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// //TRUE COPY// SENIOR PRI VATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A)-2, NASHIK 4. CIT-2, NASHIK 5. , , B BENCH PUNE; 6. / GUARD FILE.