Prakash Kudale, Pune V. ITO Wd- 3[1] Pune, Pune

ITA 1560/PUN/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4338 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-05-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 23-10-2012
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 17-07-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANN KAPTHUAMA
• Assessee Lawyers: HARISH JOSHI
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Corroborative evidences

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER , AND SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ITA.NO.637/PN/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -3(1), 2 ND FLOOR, B WING, PMT COMMERCIAL BUILDING, SHANKARSHET ROAD, PUNE. .. APPELLANT VS. PRAKASH M. KUDALE, 41, SHIVPRASAD HOUSING SOCIETY, PANMALA, PUNE 411 030. .. RESPONDENT PAN NO. ABFPK 3550M ITA NO.1560/PN/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08) PRAKASH M. KUDALE, 41, SHIVPRASAD HOUSING SOCIETY, PANMALA, PUNE 411 030. .. APPELLANT PAN NO. ABFPK 3550M VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -3(1), 2 ND FLOOR, B WING, PMT COMMERCIAL BUILDING, SHANKARSHET ROAD, PUNE. .. RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI HARISH JOSHI REVENUE BY : MS. ANN KAPTHUAMA DATE OF HEARING : 25-04-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14-05-2013 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM : THESE ARE CROSS APPEALS. THE FIRST ONE IS FILED B Y THE REVENUE AND THE SECOND ONE BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28-02-2011 OF THE CIT(A)-II, PUNE RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. THERE IS A DELAY OF 13 MONTHS IN FILING OF THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE FOR WHICH A CONDONATION PETITION HAS BEEN FILED. A FTER CONSIDERING THE CONTENTS OF THE CONDONATION PETITION AND AFTER HEAR ING BOTH THE SIDES THE DELAY IN FILING OF THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS C ONDONED. 2 3. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS AN INDIVIDUAL ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CIVIL CONSTRUCTION AND F ILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 31-10-2007 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.3,43,790 /-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOT ED FROM THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN CONSUMABLE PURCHASES OF RS.13,58,948/-. FROM THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE ABOVE PURCHASES THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THA T THE PURCHASES TO THE TUNE OF RS.1,00,909/- ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVID ENCE SUCH AS BILLS OR EVIDENCE OF PAYMENT ETC. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE REFORE DISALLOWED RS.1,00,900/- AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOM E AS UNEXPLAINED CONSUMABLE PURCHASES. 3.1 FROM THE DETAILS OF LABOUR CHARGES DEBITED TO T HE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AT RS.65,15,386/- THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOT ED THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.14,73,286/- HAS BEEN PAID BY CHEQUE AND THE BALA NCE AMOUNT OF RS.50,42,100/- HAS BEEN PAID BY CASH. THE TOTAL LA BOUR CHARGES DEBITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT IS 72.61% OF THE TURNOV ER OF RS.89,72,802/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE DETAILS OF THESE PAYMENTS WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCES. IN ABSENCE OF FURNISHING OF SUCH DETAILS SUCH AS NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE PERSON TO W HOM PAYMENTS ARE MADE, BILLS OR VOUCHERS IN SUPPORT OF THE SAME THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS.50 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF L ABOUR CHARGES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SIMILARLY HAD MADE ADDITION OF RS .1,42,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF HIRING CHARGES. THUS, AS AGAINST THE RETURNED I NCOME OF RS,3,43,790/- THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ON A TOT AL INCOME OF RS.55,86,690/-. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CHALLENGE THE ADDITION OF RS.1,00,900/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF CONSUMA BLE PURCHASES AND 3 RS.1,42,000/- TOWARDS HIRING CHARGES BEFORE THE CIT (A), THEREFORE, THE ISSUE ON THESE 2 ADDITIONS IS NOT BEFORE US. 4. SO FAR AS ADDITION OF RS.50 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF LABOUR CHARGES IS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED CERTAIN ADDITIONA L EVIDENCES BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AFTER CONSIDERING THE REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER AND THE OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE SAME THE LD. CIT(A ) RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO RS.19,42,515/- BY HOLDING AS UNDER : 4.8 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPEL LANT AND MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS NOTICED THAT WHEREAS THE ASSESSME NT ORDER WAS PASSED BASICALLY IN AN ADHOC MANNER DISALLOWING PRACTICALLY ALL THE LABOUR CHARGES MADE IN CASH, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CARRIED OUT VERIFICATION OF THE LABOUR CHARGES EXPENSES VIS--VIS THE VOUCHERS PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT, A LONG WITH LEDGER COPIES AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDING S. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CARRIED OUT VERIFICATION OF THESE VOUCHERS WITH REF ERENCE TO LEDGER AND CASH BOOK AND HAS POINTED OUT GLARING DISCREPANCIES, AS MENTI ONED IN THE REMAND REPORT DTD.21.1.2011. IT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER THAT IN SOME OF THE SELF MADE VOUCHERS, THE APPELLANT HAS MADE CORR ECTIONS IN THE DATES AS PER THE CASH BOOK ENTRIES. HOWEVER, INSIPTE OF THE SAME , IN A LARGE NUMBER OF ENTRIES / VOUCHERS PRODUCED THE PAYMENTS SHOWN IN THE LEDGE R IS MUCH DIFFERENT FROM THAT WHICH IS REVEALED FROM THE CORRESPONDING DATE IN THE CASH BOOK; THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF SUCH DISCREPANCIES POINTED OUT BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND REPORT WORKED OUT TO RS. 19,42,515/-. 4.9 IN THIS CONNECTION, IN THE COUNTER COMMENTS, TH E APPELLANT HAS TO SOME EXTENT ADMITTED THE DISCREPANCIES, BUT HAS EXPLAINED IT BY CONTENDING THAT THE APPELLANT WAS AN ENGINEER AND N OT CONVERSANT WITH MAINTENANCE OF ACCOUNTS. IT IS FURTHER STATED THAT THE APPELLANT SHOULD HAVE ENGAGED A CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT INSTEAD OF ENGA GING SERVICES OF A NON-PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTANT WHICH HAS CAUSED THESE DIFFERENCES/ DEFECTS. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT EVEN IF THE CORRECTIONS OF THE VOUCHERS ARE ASSUMED WITHOUT ADMITTING, IT MAY HAVE HAPPENED DUE TO COMMUNICATION GAP BETWEEN THE ACCOUNTANT AND THE APPELLANT REGARDING THE DATE OF DISBURSEMENT OF CASH PAYMENT. IT IS FURTHER STATED THAT THERE MAY BE SOME DIFFERENCES IN THE PAYMENTS SHOWN IN THE LEDGER VIS-A-VIS CASH BOOK OF THE PARTICULAR DATE, BUT THE APPELLANT HAD ACTUALLY MADE PAYMENT OF LABOUR IN CASH TOTALING RS.50,42,100/- AND THERE WAS NO LIABI LITY TO MAKE TDS FROM SUCH PAYMENT. IT IS STATED THAT IF THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.50 LAKH S MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SUSTAINED, THEN IT WOULD RESULT IN NET PROFIT OUT OF THE LABOU R CONTRACT OF RS.55,86,690/- ON THE TURNOVER OF RS.89,72,802/- WHICH WAS BEYOND COMMON SENSE, I.E. TOTALLY UNREASONABLE. THE APPELLANT HAS CITED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR A. Y.08-09 I.E. THE NEXT YEAR IN WHICH ALSO SIMILAR DEFECTS WERE NOTED, BUT ONLY THE ESTIMATION OF NET PROFIT WAS MADE. 4 4.10 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE A PPELLANT'S EXPLANATION ON THESE DISCREPANCIES SPECIFICALLY POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER A FTER CONDUCTING THOROUGH VERIFICATION OF THE VOUCHERS PRODUCED WITH' REFERENCE TO LEDGER AND CASH BOOK. SINCE ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN THE PAYMENT SHOW N IN THE LEDGER ACCOUNT WITH REFERENCE TO THE PAYMENTS RECORDED IN THE CASH BOOK , THIS IMPLIES THAT THERE IS MOSTLY AN EXCESS PAYMENT SHOWN IN THE LEDGER, WHICH IS NOT AC TUALLY EXISTING IN THE CASH BOOK. THIS IN TURN BECOMES OF THE NATURE OF UNACCOUNTED PAYMENTS, WHICH REMAINED TO BE EXPLAINED BY THE APPELLANT. NOT ONLY DURING THE VERIFICATION CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN WHICH THE APPELLANT HAD ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF EXPLAININ G THE DIFFERENCE, THE APPELLANT HAD ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED DURING THE APPEL LATE PROCEEDINGS ALSO. SINCE THIS COULD NOT BE EXPLAINED, THE EXPLANATION THAT THIS W AS BECAUSE OF THE APPELLANT BEING AN ENGINEER AND NOT ENGAGING A CHARTERED ACCO UNTANT ETC. DOES NOT HELP THE APPELLANT. THE DIFFERENCES POINTED OUT CLEA RLY POINTS OUT TO SOME UNACCOUNTED PAYMENTS RECORDED IN THE LEDGER IN THE FORM OF CASH PAID TO VARIOUS PERSONS MOSTLY LABOUR CONTRACTORS / LABOUR SUPERVIS ORS FOR PAYMENT TO LABOURERS WHEREAS NO SUCH PAYMENTS WERE RECORDED IN THE CASH BOOK. ON THE BASIS OF THE SAME, AND THE SPECIFIC DIFFERENCE POINTED OUT BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER AT RS.19,42,515/- THE ADDITION TO THIS EXTENT IS HEREB Y SUSTAINED. GROUND NO. 2 IS ACCORDINGLY PARTLY ALLOWED. 5. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH PART RELIEF GIVEN BY THE CIT (A) THE REVENUE AS WELL AS THE ASSESSEE ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE US WITH T HE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : GROUNDS BY REVENUE : 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX (APPEALS) IS CONTRARY TO LAW AND TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) GROSSLY ERRED IN ALLOWING THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL INSTEAD OF CONFIRMIN G THE ASSESSMENT. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) GROSSLY ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE OF LABOUR EXPENSES TO RS.19,42,5157- MAINLY ON THE SPECIFIC DISCREPANCIES POINTED OUT IN THE REMAND RE PORT AND IN FAILING TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE GENUINENESS OF OTHER PAYMENTS, WHICH ALSO CONTAINED THE SIMILAR DEFECTS/ DISCREPANCIES AS OBSERVED IN THE REMAND REPORT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE DRAWN ADVERSE INFERENCE ON THE REMAINING CLAIM IN RESPECT OF LABOUR EXPENSES AS WELL SINCE THE DEFICIENCIES AND DISCREPANCIES POINTED OU T BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER CLEARLY INDICATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FABRICATED VOUCHERS TO MAKE AND COVER UP CLAIM WHICH WAS NOT GENUINE. 5. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) GROSSLY ERRED IN FAILING TO DRAW ADVERSE INFERENCE ON THE VARIATIONS POINTED OUT IN THE REMAND REPORT BETWEEN THE DATES OF RECEIPT OF CASH BY SHRI . R. R. PANDIT AND SHRI. SONAWANE AS APPEARING IN CASH BOOK ON ONE HAND AND THE PETTY CASH ACCOUNT ON THE OTHER. 6. FOR THESE AND SUCH OTHER GROUNDS AS MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) MAY BE VACAT ED AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 7. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEN D ANY OR ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 5 GROUNDS BY ASSESSEE : 1. ON THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING ADDITION OF RS. 19,4 2,515- (RUPEES NINTEEN LACS FORTY TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED & FIFTEEN ONLY) ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF LABOUR CHARGES. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE S AME WITHOUT ENQUIRING INTO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND PROVISI ONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND RULES THEREUNDER AND WITHOUT GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT OF BEING HELD. 2. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, ALTE R AND/OR MODIFY ANY OR ALL OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL STATED ABOVE ON OR BEFORE THE DATE OF HEARING. 6. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY OBJECT ED TO THE HUGE ADDITIONS SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A). HE SUBMITTE D THAT IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR THE SAME ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE SAME SET OF FACTS HAS ESTIMATED THE INCOME AT 8% OF THE TOTAL TURNOVER. HE SUBMITTED T HAT IF THE ADDITION SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) IS ACCEPTED THE PROFIT PERC ENTAGE COMES TO 25% WHICH IS NOT POSSIBLE IN THE LINE OF BUSINESS CARRI ED ON BY THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DURING THE IMPUGNED ASS ESSMENT YEAR HAS CARRIED OUT THE WORK OF PROVIDING LABOUR TO MAGARPA TTA TOWNSHIP DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PVT. LTD. AND MAHARASTRA JEEVAN PRADHIKARAN WORK AT KOLHAR. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE NATURE OF WORK INVOLVED IN MAGARPATTA TOWNSHIP ARE CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES WHERE THE MAIN WORK INVOLVED ARE FOR PROVI DING LABOUR. THE APPROXIMATE VALUE OF THE SAID WORK IS AROUND RS.67 LAKHS. SIMILARLY, THE OTHER WORK DURING THE PERIOD WAS LAYING DOWN THE PI PELINE FOR PROVIDING POTABLE WATER TO THE RURAL AREAS AT VILLAGE KOLHAR IN AHMEDNAGAR DISTRICT OF MAHARASTRA FOR MAHARASTRA JEEVAN PRADHIKARAN. T HE APPROXIMATE VALUE OF THE SAID WORK WAS RS.23 LAKHS. HE SUBMITTED THA T UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THERE CANNOT BE GROSS MAR GIN OF MORE THAN 10% IN THIS LINE OF BUSINESS. REFERRING TO VARIOUS DECISI ONS HE SUBMITTED THAT THE 6 BOOKS CANNOT BE REJECTED IN ABSENCE OF DISCREPANCY POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND DISALLOWANCE IN A MECHANICAL MANNER IS NOT PERMITTED. HE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE CO ULD NOT APPOINT A PROFESSIONAL CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, THEREFORE, ALL T HESE DISCREPANCIES AS POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OCCURRED. HOW EVER, DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED TH E FULL DETAILS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, ADDITION OF RS.19,42, 515/- WHICH HAS BEEN SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) OUT OF THE ADDITION OF RS.50 LAKHS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS UNJUSTIFIED AND THE SAME SHOUL D BE DELETED. 7. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER HAND SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COMPLY TO THE STAT UTORY REQUIREMENTS AS ASKED FOR BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. DURING THE APP EAL PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED CERTAIN EVIDENCES WHICH WERE SENT TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR HIS VERIFICATION. THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER AFTER DUE VERIFICATION GAVE HIS REMAND REPORT POINTING OUT THE DISCREPANCI ES. THEREFORE, THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT AT ALL RELIABLE AN D THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE SHOULD BE UPHELD. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY T HE BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A) AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE NUMEROUS DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAVE BEEN RELIED UPON IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION. THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE, DURING THE COURSE ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS, HAS NOT 7 FURNISHED THE FULL DETAILS OF THE LABOUR CHARGES FO R WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.50 LAKHS OUT OF THE LABOUR CHARGES PAID IN CASH TO THE TUNE OF RS.50,42,100/-. WE FIND THE LD . CIT(A) AFTER OBTAINING THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUSTAI NED ADDITION OF RS.19,42,515/- OUT OF THE ADDITION OF RS.50 LAKHS M ADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WHILE DOING SO, HE NOTED THAT CERTAIN UNA CCOUNTED PAYMENTS ARE RECORDED IN THE LEDGER IN THE FORM OF CASH PAID TO VARIOUS PERSONS MOSTLY LABOUR CONTRACTORS/LABOUR SUPERVISORS WHEREAS NO SU CH PAYMENTS ARE RECORDED IN THE CASH BOOK. IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.19,42,515/- ON ACC OUNT OF LABOUR CHARGES BRINGS THE MARGIN OF PROFIT TO 25%, WHICH IS NOT PO SSIBLE IN THIS LINE OF BUSINESS. FURTHER, IT IS ALSO THE SUBMISSION OF TH E LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT UNDER IDENTICAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES THE SAME ASSESSING OFFICER IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2008-09 HAS ESTIMATED THE PROFIT FROM CONTRACT WORK AT 8%. WE FIND SOME FORCE IN TH E ABOVE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. FROM THE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE A.Y. 2008-09 ( A COPY OF WHICH IS FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK) WE FIND THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT PARA 10 OF THE ORDER AFTER CON SIDERING THE NUMBER OF DEFECTS IN THE ACCOUNTS HAS REJECTED THE BOOK RESUL TS AND ESTIMATED THE PROFIT AT 8% ON THE CONTRACT RECEIPT OF RS.1,49 CRORES. C ONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT DURING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR THERE ARE CERTAIN DEFECTS, I.E. ENT RIES FOUND IN THE LEDGER ARE NOT FOUND IN THE CASH BOOK, ESTIMATION OF PROFIT @1 0% OF THE TURNOVER IN OUR OPINION WILL MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. WE HOLD AND DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE ACCORDINGLY D ISMISSED AND THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 8 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED AND THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 14 TH DAY OF MAY 2013. SD/- SD/- (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV ) ( R.K. PANDA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SATISH PUNE, DATED THE 14 TH MAY 2013. COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE DEPARTMENT 3. THE CIT(A)-II, PUNE 4. THE CIT-II, PUNE 5. THE DR A BENCH, PUNE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // PRIVATE SECRETARY, INCOME TAX APPELLATE T RIBUNAL, PUNE.