ACIT 25(2), MUMBAI V. ANAND BABULAL MEHTA, MUMBAI

ITA 144/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8384 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-02-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 27-01-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 08-01-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH KUMAR JADHAVDR
• Assessee Lawyers: RAHUL K HAKANIAR
• Keywords: Bogus purchase
• Section: 143(3); 147; 148

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL G, BENCH, MUMBA I , , , BEFORE SHRI RAJENDRA, AM AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM ITA NO. 144/MUM/2015 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) THE ACIT 25(2), C - 12, 7 TH FLOOR, R. NO. 703, PRATYAKSH KAR BHAVAN, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI- 400051 VS. SHRI ANAND BABU LAL MEHTA, 301, AALAP BUILDING, NEHRU ROAD, VILE PARLEI (E), MUMBAI- 400049 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AARPM2652F ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) & CO NO. 119/MUM/2016 (A/W ITA NO. 144/MUM/2015) ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) SHRI ANAND B. MEHTA, 101, VARALAXMI CHSL, HANUMAN ROAD, VILE PARLE (EAST), MUMBAI- 400057 VS. THE ACIT 25(2), C - 12, ROOM. NO. 703, 7 TH FLOOR, PRATYAKSHKAR BHAVAN, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI- 400051 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AARPM2652F ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) !' /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI. RAHUL K. HAKANI(AR) /REVENUE BY : SHRI. RAJESH KUMAR JADHAV(DR) # $ % '& / DATE OF HEARING : 10/02/2017 '()* % '& / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 23/02/2017 2 ITA NOS. 144/MUM/2015 & CO NO 119/MUM/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 !' / O R D E R PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM THE PRESENT APPEAL AND CROSS OBJECTION HAVE BEEN FI LED BY THE REVENUE AND THE ASSESSEE AGAINST ORDER DATED 21/10/2014 PAS SED BY THE LD. CIT (A)- 32, MUMBAI WHEREBY THE LD. CIT (A) PARTLY ALLOWED T HE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 17/02/2014 PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT FOR SHORT). SINCE, TH E APPEAL AND CROSS OBJECTION ARISE FROM A SINGLE ORDER WHICH PERTAIN TO THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2009-10, BOTH WERE CLUBBED, HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FI LED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 2,14,58,877/- AFTER SCRUTINY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED DETERMINI NG THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 2,16,57,246/-. SUBSEQUENTLY, INFORMATION WAS RECEIV ED FROM DIT (INV.) AND SALES TAX DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF MAHARASHTRA THAT ASS ESSEE HAS TAKEN BOGUS PURCHASE ENTRIES OF RS. 95,44,936/- FROM SEVEN PAR TIES. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO SUBMIT CONFIRMATION FROM THE PARTIES HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE EXPRESSED ITS INABILITY TO GET THE CONFIRM ATION ON THE GROUND THAT THE PARTIES ARE NOT RESPONDING TO THE REQUEST MADE TO T HEM. SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBMIT THE CONFIRMATION THE AO MADE ADDIT ION OF RS. 95,44,936/- TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE TREATING THE SAME AS NON GENUINE TRANSACTION. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT (A) IN FIRST APPEAL. THE LD. CIT (A) AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE CONFIRMED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 12,56,4 05/- BY APPLYING THE NET PROFIT RATIO OF 8.26 % ON TOTAL TURNOVER AND BALANC E ADDITION OF RS. 82,78,531/- WAS ORDERED TO BE DELETED. 3 ITA NOS. 144/MUM/2015 & CO NO 119/MUM/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 4. AGAINST THE SAID ORDER SAID ORDER THE REVENUE HA S PREFERRED THE PRESENT APPEAL RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN APPLYING THE NET PROFIT RA TIO OF 8.26% ON TOTAL TURNOVER IN RESPECT OF ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. ON THE GROUND OF BOGUS PURCHASES FROM HAWALA DEALERS. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THAT THE A DDITION WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE DIT (INV.) AND SALES TAX DEPARTMENT, MAHARASHTRA WITH REGARD TO BO GUS PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FROM DEALERS WITHOUT SUPPLY OF ACTUAL GOODS. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THAT THE H AWALA DEALERS HAVE ADMITTED ON OATH BEFORE THE SALES TAX AUTHORIT IES THAT THEY HAVE NOT SOLD ANY MATERIAL WHATSOEVER TO ANYBODY. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THAT THE A SSESSEE COULD NOT PROVE THE GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF T HE PURCHASE TRANSACTIONS DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS. 5. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) ON THE ABOVE GROUNDS BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFI CER BE RESTORED. 6. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR TO ALTER AN Y GROUND OR ADD A NEW GROUND, WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE CR OSS OBJECTION AGAINST THE SAID ORDER ON THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUNDS: 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)- 32, MUMBAI [CIT (A)] ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE VALIDITY OF NOTICE ISSUED UNDER 4 ITA NOS. 144/MUM/2015 & CO NO 119/MUM/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 SECTION 148 AND THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED THEREON UNDER SECTION 143 (3) READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 19 61, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED WAS INVALID AND VOID AB INITIO AND THERE WAS NO INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX WHICH HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. 2. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN ESTIMATING THE NET PRO FIT @ 8.26% AND IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 12,56,405/- ONLY FOR THE REASON THAT SOME OF THE SUPPLIERS NAMES WERE APPEARING IN THE L IST OF HAWALA DEALERS AVAILABLE ON THE MAHAVAT WEBSITE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE RESPONDENT PRAYS THAT THE ADDITION OUGHT TO BE DELETED. 3. THE RESPONDENT CRAVES TO ADD, ALTER, DELETE OR MODI FY THE ABOVE GROUND OF CROSS-OBJECTION ON OR BEFORE THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 6. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) RELYING ON THE FINDINGS OF ASSESSMENT OFFICER SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS MADE D ISALLOWANCE OF ENTIRE AMOUNT BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO SUBMIT TH E CONFIRMATION FROM THE CONCERNED PARTIES. SINCE, THE FINDINGS OF THE AO IS BASED ON THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD, LD. CIT (A) HAS WRONGLY CONFIRMED THE ADDIT ION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 12,56,405/- ONLY BY APPLYING THE NET PROFIT RATIO O F 8% ON TOTAL TURNOVER. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION T HE ADMISSION ON THE PART OF HAWALA DEALERS MADE BEFORE THE SALES TAX AUTHORITIE S TO THE EFFECT THAT THEY DID NOT SUPPLY ANY MATERIAL WHATSOEVER TO ANYBODY. AS R EGARDS THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT SIN CE, THE DEPARTMENT HAS CHALLENGED THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THE GROUND THAT TH E LD. CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY APPLIED THE NET PROFIT RATIO, THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION. THE LD. DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IMPUGNED ORDER MA Y BE SET ASIDE AND THE ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION MAY BE DISMISSED. 5 ITA NOS. 144/MUM/2015 & CO NO 119/MUM/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 7. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE REVENUES APPEAL AS THE LD. CIT( A) HAS WRONGLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 12,56,405/-BY ESTIMAT ING THE NET PROFIT @ 8.26% ONLY FOR THE REASON THAT NAMES OF SOME OF HAWALA DE ALERS WERE APPEARING ON MAHAVAT WEBSITE. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE FURTHER SUBMI TTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT WANT TO PRESS GROUND NO. 1 OF THE CROSS OB JECTION. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 1 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. THE LD. COUNSEL AGAINST THE GROUNDS OF REVENUES APPEAL AND IN SUPP ORT OF ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION SUBMITTED THAT THAT ASSESSEE HAD CARRIED THE MATTER PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 AND 2011-12 TO THE INCOME T AX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION BY FILING APPLICATION U/S 245C (1) OF T HE ACT WITH THE OFFER OF ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS. 37,12,340/- FOR A.Y. 2010- 11 AND RS. 6,85,505/- FOR THE A.Y. 2011-12 WHICH INTER ALIA INCLUDED RS. 2 ,0 0,000/- FOR EACH OF THE TWO YEARS AS MISCELLANEOUS RECEIPTS EARNED BY THE APPLI CANT. THE ASSESSEE WORKED OUT THE PROFIT @ 8% ON THE TOTAL CONTRACTED AMOUNT WHICH RESULTED IN THE ADDITIONAL UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS. 37,12,340/- AN D RS. 6,85,505/-. FURTHER, IN THE SPIRIT OF SETTLEMENT AND TO BUY PEACE THE AS SESSEE VOLUNTARILY OFFERED FURTHER ADDITIONAL UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS. 10,00 ,000/- FOR THE A.Y. 2010-11 AND RS. 20,00,000/- FOR A.Y. 2011-12, TO COVER UP P OSSIBLE INFLATION AND ANY DISCREPANCY IN THE COST OF RAW MATERIALS WHICH WAS ACCEPTED BY THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THE LIGHT OF THE FINDINGS OF THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION THE PROFIT CANNOT EXCE ED 8% ON THE TOTAL TURNOVER. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ALSO PER USED THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. WE NOTICE THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HA S BASED HIS FINDINGS ON THE ORDER DATED 03.03.2014 PASSED BY THE SETTLEMENT COM MISSION U/S 245D (4) OF THE ACT, THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE CIT(A) ORDER R EADS AS UNDER: THE HONBLE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION IN THE SUBSEQUEN T TWO YEARS (SUPRA) IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE HAS HELD THAT 8% NET PROFIT ON TOTAL TURNOVER IS QUITE 6 ITA NOS. 144/MUM/2015 & CO NO 119/MUM/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 FAIR AND REASONABLE. I ALSO FIND THAT HONBLE SETTL EMENT COMMISSION DECISIONS IS VERY MUCH APPLICABLE FOR A.Y. UNDER CO NSIDERATION ALSO AS THE PROJECTS OF THE APPLICANT ARE LASTING AND OVERLAPPI NG INTO THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS. FURTHER, IT IS ALSO FOUND THAT THE NON GENUI NE PURCHASE OF PARTIES OF THIS YEAR ARE ALSO FOUND TO BE THE PARTIES IN THE S UBSEQUENT YEARS FOR WHICH THE APPLICANT HAS GONE TO THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION . HENCE THE FINDINGS OF THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION OF THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS A RE VERY MUCH APPLICABLE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ALSO AS THE NON GENUINE PARTIES ARE THE SAME FOR ALL THE YEARS. THEREFORE, 8% NET P ROFIT ON TOTAL TURNOVER WOULD COVER UP THE PROFIT ELEMENT EMBEDDED IN THE P URCHASES OF S. 95,44,936/- . HOWEVER, I ALSO FIND THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONS PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT HAD DECLARE D ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS. 10,00,000/- FOR A.Y. 2010-11. IF THE AVERAGE OF THE TOTAL INCOME ADDITIONAL DECLARATION OF RS. 10,00,000/- IS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THEN THE NET PROFIT RATIO COMES TO 8.26% (RS. 3,12,97,1 28/RS. 37,871,4097X100). THE TOTAL TURNOVER OF THE APPELLA NT IS RS. 27,11,01,357/- BY APPLYING THE NET PROFIT RATIO OF 8.26%, THE NET PROFIT OF THE APPELLANT COMES TO RS. 2,23,92,972/-, WHEREAS T HE APPELLANT HAS SHOWN NET PROFIT OF RS. 2,11,36,972/-. THUS, ADDITI ON TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 12,56,405/- (RS. 2,23,92,972/- - RS. 2,11,26,567/-) IS CONFIRMED AND THE BALANCE ADDITION OF RS. 82,78,531/ - (RS. 95,44,936 /- - RS. 12,66,405/-) IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 9. WE FURTHER NOTICE THAT THE LD. SETTLEMENT COMMI SSION HAS ACCEPTED THE PROFIT @ 8% WORKED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE HOLDING AS U NDER: WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPLICANT AND HAVE PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE HAVE ALSO HEAR D THE CIT (DR) AND CONSIDERED THE RULE 9 REPORT. IT IS A FACT THAT THE ENTIRE PURCHASES FROM THE VENDORS AS PER THE WEBSITE CANNOT BE DISALLOWED IN TOTO BECAUSE THE CONSUMPTION OF MATERIALS PURCHASED FROM THESE PARTI ES HAVE BEEN DULY VERIFIED BY THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER, M UMBAI (MCGM)S ENGINEERS AND LATER ON CLARIFIED BY THEIR VIGILANCE AND AUDIT WINGS. BE THAT AS IT MAY, WITHOUT ACTUALLY CONSUMING THE RAW MATER IALS, THE WORK DONE BY THE APPLICANT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE. THE NON -AVAILABILITY OF THE SELLERS/SUPPLIERS OR THERE DENIAL REGARDING THESE T RANSACTIONS CANNOT LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THESE PURCHASES WERE NOT AT ALL REQUIRED TO BE MADE 7 ITA NOS. 144/MUM/2015 & CO NO 119/MUM/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSEE BUSINESS, AS THERE COUL D NOT HAVE BEEN THE CORRESPONDING SALES/RECEIPTS BY WAY OF EXECUTION OF THE CONTRACT WORKS BY THE APPLICANT, WITHOUT UTILIZATION OF THESE MATERIA LS. THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M/S NIKUNJ EXIM ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. IS FOUND TO BE APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. AS REGARDS, THE RATE OF NET PROFIT OF 8% SUGG ESTED BY THE APPLICANT, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT IT IS QUITE R EASONABLE AND FAIR ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.. 10. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A ) IN THE LIGHT OF THE FINDINGS OF THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION GIVEN IN ASSE SSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 AND 2011-12. WE NOTICE THAT THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION HAS FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF HONBLE JUR ISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT BOMBAY RENDERED IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. NIKUNJ EXIM ENTERPRI SES PVT. LTD. (2015) 372 ITR 619 (BOM) IN WHICH THE QUESTION FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE HONBLE COURT WAS AS UNDER: WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN DELETING THE EDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF RS. 1,33,41,917/- TOWARDS BOGUS PURCHASES EVEN THOU GH THE SUPPLIER WAS NOT EXISTENT AND ONE OF THE PARTIES HAD CATEGORICAL LY DENIED HAVING ANY BUSINESS DEALINGS WITH THE ASSESSEE COMPANY 11. THE HONBLE COURT DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE HOLDING AS UNDER: WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. HOWEVER, FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 30.04.2010, WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS DELETED THE ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCH ASES NOT ONLY ON THE BASIS OF STOCK STATEMENT I.E. RECONCILIATION STATEM ENT, BUT ALSO IN VIEW OF THE OTHER FACTS. THE TRIBUNAL RECORDS THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE HAVE NOT BEEN REJECTED. SIMILAR LY, THE SALES HAVE NOT BEEN DOUBTED AND IT IS AN ADMITTED POSITION THAT SU BSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF SALES HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT I .E. DEFENCE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT LABORATORY, HYDERABAD. FUR THER, THERE WERE 8 ITA NOS. 144/MUM/2015 & CO NO 119/MUM/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 CONFIRMATION LETTERS FILED BY THE SUPPLIERS, COPIES OF INVOICES FOR PURCHASES AS WELL AS COPIES OF BANK STATEMENT ALL OF WHICH WO ULD INDICATED THAT THE PURCHASES WERE INFACT MADE. IN OUR VIEW, MERELY BEC AUSE THE SUPPLIERS HAVE NOT APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR T HE CIT (A), ONE CANNOT CONCLUDE THAT THE PURCHASES WERE NOT MADE BY THE RE SPONDENT-ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS CIT (A) HAVE DISAL LOWED THE DEDUCTION OF RS. 1.33 CORES ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASES MERELY ON TH E BASIS OF SUSPICION BECAUSE THE SELLERS AND THE CANVASSING AGENTS HAVE NOT BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE THEM. WE FIND THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS WELL A REASONED ORDER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ALL THE FACTS BEFORE CONCLUDING THAT THE PURCHASES OF RS. 1.33 CRORES WAS NOT BOGUS. NO FAULT CAN BE FOUND WI TH THE ORDER DATED 30.04.2010 OF THE TRIBUNAL. 12. IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE SETTLEMENT COMMISS ION HAS PASSED THE ORDER U/S 245 D (4) OF THE ACT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE A.Y. 2010-11 AND 2011- 12 FOLLOWING THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE BOM BAY HIGH COURT IN M/S NIKUNJ EXIM ENTERPRISES (SUPRA) AND ALLOWED 8% PROFIT ON THE CONTRACT AMOU NT WORKED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, IN OUR CONSIDERE D OPINION, 8% PROFIT RATIO ON RS. 27,11,01,357/- I.E. THE TOTAL TURNOVER OF TH E ASSESSEE WHICH COMES TO RS. 2,16,88,108/- IS REASONABLE. SINCE, THE ASSESSEE HA S SHOWN NET PROFIT OF RS. 2,11,36,567/- THE ADDITION IS REQUIRED TO BE CONFIR MED TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 5,51,541/- I.E. ( 2,16,88,108/- (-) 2,11,36,567/- ). HENCE, THE SOLITARY GROUND OF CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWE D AND ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A) IS MODIFIED ACCORDINGLY. ON THE OTHER HAND , ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT ARE DISMISSED AS WE HAVE RE DUCED THE PROFIT RATIO TO 8% ON TOTAL TURNOVER AS AGAINST THE RATIO OF 8.26% EST IMATED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 13. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010 IS DISMISSED AND THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE A SSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23 RD FEBRUARY, 2017. 9 ITA NOS. 144/MUM/2015 & CO NO 119/MUM/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 SD/- SD/- (RAJENDRA) (RAM LAL NEGI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER # +$ MUMBAI; , DATED: 23/02/2017 ALINDRA, PS !'#$%&'&$ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. # /' ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. # /' / CIT 5. 23 '4 , & 4 * , # +$ / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 6 7$ / GUARD FILE. !' / BY ORDER, 2' ' //TRUE COPY// ()*+ (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , # +$ / ITAT, MUMBAI