Smt. Purnima Sunil Agrawal, Vapi V. The Income tax Officer,Vapi Ward-2, Vapi

ITA 1506/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9841 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 4 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 06-12-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 09-07-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: M K PATEL

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 1338/AHD/2012 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 ITO, VAPI WARD-2, VAPI VS SMT. PURNIMA SUNIL AGRAWAL, PROP. OF SHREE BALAJI TRADERS, 4/101, ASOPALAV COMPLEX, CHHARWADA ROAD, VAPI PAN : AAVPA 0055 E ./ ITA NO. 1506/AHD/2012 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 SMT. PURNIMA SUNIL AGRAWAL, PROP. OF SHREE BALAJI TRADERS, 4/101, ASOPALAV COMPLEX, CHHARWADA ROAD, VAPI PAN : AAVPA 0055 E VS ITO, VAPI WARD-2, VAPI / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI K. MADHUSUDAN, SR DR ASSESSEE BY : SHRI M.K. PATEL, AR / DATE OF HEARING : 06/12/2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 08/12/2016 / O R D E R PER R.P. TOLANI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THESE ARE THE CROSS-APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AN D ASSESSEE RESPECTIVELY AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), VALSAD DATED 30.03.2012 FOR AY 2009-10. 2. THE SOLE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE READS AS U NDER:- ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.23,20,713/ - MADE @ 15% OF TOTAL PURCHASE. 3. THE SOLITARY GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS UNDER:- ITA NOS. 1338 & 1506/AHD/2012 ITO VS. SMT PURNIMA SUNIL AGRAWAL AY : 2009-10 2 ON APPRECIATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE AND INTERPRETATION OF LAW, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APP EALS) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER TO ADOPT NE T PROFIT AT THE RATE OF 2% OF THE TURNOVER FOR DETERMINING THE TAXABLE INCOME IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT AS AGAINST 0.64% AS DISCLOSED BY THE APPE LLANT IN HER RETURN OF INCOME. 4. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT T HE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS SIMILAR TO THE CASE OF SHRI PRAKASH F. SINGH IN ITA NO.1337/AHD/2012 AND CO NO.137/AHD/2012, WHEREIN TH E ITAT VIDE ORDER DATED 07.12.2016, FOLLOWING THE CASE OF TAYAB YUNUS BARUDGAR FOR AY 2009-2010 IN ITA NO.1351/AHD/2012 AND CO NO.155/AHD /2012, HAS UPHELD THE ORDER OF CIT(A) BY FOLLOWING OBSERVATION S:- 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD.DR, PERUSED THE MATERIAL A VAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. W E FIND THAT THE LD.CIT(A) WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THOUGH THE AO HAS DOUBTED THE PURCHASES BUT HAS NOT BROUGH T ON RECORD ANY INSTANCE OF BOGUS OR INFLATED PURCHASE AND HAS ALSO NOT DOUBTED THE SALES FIGURE DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE HAS FURTHER GI VEN A FINDING THAT PAPER MILL ASSOCIATION HAD FIXED THE PRICE FOR PURCHASES OF WASTE-PAPER FROM THE TRADERS AND, THEREFORE, THE SCOPE OF MANIPULATED SA LES PRICE WAS NOT ESTABLISHED AND THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO CONCLUDE T HAT WASTER-PAPER SUPPLIER HAVE HIGHER GROSS MARGIN ON SALES ONLY BECAUSE THEI R PURCHASES ARE FROM SMALL TYPE VENDORS. HE HAS FURTHER GIVEN A FINDING THAT 15% MARGIN OF PROFIT IS NOT POSSIBLE IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE. HE HAS FUR THER GIVEN A FINDING THAT CENTRAL CIRCLE SURAT HAD COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT O F SMALL TRADERS BY ESTIMATING THE GROSS PROFIT AND HAD CONSIDERED THE GROSS PROFIT RATE BETWEEN 0.5% TO 0.75% ON SIMILAR FACTS AS THAT OF ASSESSEE. HE THEREAFTER AFTER CONSIDERING THE GROSS PROFIT AND NET PROFIT RATIO S HOWN BY THE ASSESSEE, ESTIMATED THE NET PROFIT AT 2% AS AGAINST 1.10% DIS CLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE.. BEFORE US, REVENUE HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF LD.CIT(A). LOOKING TO THE TOTALITY OF T HE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDE R OF THE LD.CIT(A). THUS, THIS GROUND OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. SINCE THE ISSUE IN QUESTION IS SAME, THE VIEW ADOPT ED IN THE CASE OF PRAKASH F. SINGH MAY BE ADOPTED. 5. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE IS HEARD WHO SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. ITA NOS. 1338 & 1506/AHD/2012 ITO VS. SMT PURNIMA SUNIL AGRAWAL AY : 2009-10 3 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHOR ITIES BELOW. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE ISSUE AND THE ASSESSMENT YEAR, I.E. AY 2009-10, IN QUESTION IN RESPECT OF SUPPLY OF WASTE-PAPER TO PAP ER-MILLS OF VAPI ARE SAME. THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT IN THE CAS E OF PRAKASH F. SINGH (SUPRA), THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS UPHELD AND THE REVENUES APPEAL AS WELL AS ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL AND ASSESSEES C ROSS OBJECTION, BOTH ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 8 TH DECEMBER, 2016 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (R.P. TOLANI) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 08/12/2016 *BIJU T., SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 5. , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD