The ITO, Vapi Ward - 2, Vapi V. Shri Lalit Garg (HUF), Vapi

ITA 2073/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0639 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 05-08-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: M K PATEL
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD , , BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.2073/AHD/2013 (REVENUE) AND CO NO.22/AHD/2014 AY 2010-11 (ASSESSEE) ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) INCOME TAX OFFICER VAPI WARD-2, VAPI / VS. SH. LALIT GARG (HUF) PLOT NO.612/H/2, CHANOD COLONY GIDC, VAPI-396 195 $ ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AADHG 5087 L ( $& / APPELLANT ) .. ( '($& / RESPONDENT AND CROSS OBJECTOR ) $&) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI JAMES KURIAN, SR.DR '($&*) / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI M.K. PATEL, AR +* / DATE OF HEARING 03/08/2016 ,-./* / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 31/08/2016 / O R D E R PER SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-VALSAD DATED 31 /05/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 AND THE ASSESSEE IS IN CROS S OBJECTION THEREOF. ITA NO. 2073/AHD/2013 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NO.22/AHD/2014 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. LALIT GARG (HUF) ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 2 - 2. T HE RELEVANT FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERIALS ON RECORD ARE AS UNDER:- 2.1. ASSESSEE IS A HUF WHICH IS STATED TO BE ENGAGE D IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING OF WASTE-PAPER. ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2010-11 ON 06/08/2010 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF R S.8,02,130/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THEREAFTER ASSES SMENT WAS FRAMED U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REF ERRED TO AS 'THE ACT') VIDE ORDER DATED 01/03/2013 AND THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS.57,42,160/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSE SSING OFFICER (AO), ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), W HO VIDE ORDER DATED 31/05/2013(IN APPEAL NO.CIT(A)/VLS/193/12-13) GRANT ED PARTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD.CIT (A), REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS .49,40,034/- MADE @ 15% OF TOTAL PURCHASES. 2.2. ON THE OTHER HAND, ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOW ING GROUND IN ITS CROSS OBJECTION:- 1. ON APPRECIATION OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND LAW, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAD RI GHTLY DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.49,40,034/- MADE @15% OF TOT AL PURCHASES. 2. IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNE D COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) BE UPHELD TO THE ABOVE EXTENT. ITA NO. 2073/AHD/2013 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NO.22/AHD/2014 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. LALIT GARG (HUF) ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 3 - 3. ON APPRECIATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE AND INTERPRETATION OF LAW, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT NOT HAVE DIRECTED THE LEARNED ASSES SING OFFICER TO ADOPT NET PROFIT AT THE RATE 3% OF THE TURNOVER FOR DETERMINING THE TAXABLE INCOME IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT AS AGAI NST 2.68% AS DISCLOSED BY THE APPELLANT IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME. 2.3. BEFORE US BOTH THE PARTIES SUBMITTED THAT THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE & ASSESSEE ARE INTER-CONNECTED. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID SUBMISSION OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND SINCE THE GROUND S IN APPEAL AND CROSS OBJECTION ARE INTER-CONNECTED, THEREFORE THE SAME A RE CONSIDERED TOGETHER. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ON VERIFYING THE PURCHASES FROM THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSE E, AO NOTICED THAT THE PURCHASE VOUCHERS WERE PRIMA-FACIE UNVERIFIABLE BECAUSE THERE WAS NO NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THE PARTIES FROM WHOM THE PU RCHASES WERE MADE, THERE WAS NO SIGNATURES OF THE PARTIES IN THE VOUCH ERS, ALL THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE IN CASH. AO WAS THEREFORE OF THE VIEW TH AT PURCHASES WERE NOT FULLY VERIFIABLE. HE ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWED 15 % OF THE PURCHASES AMOUNTING TO RS.49,40,034/- AS BEING NON-VERIFIABLE AND ACCORDINGLY MADE ITS ADDITION. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, A SSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE GRANTED PARTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING AS UNDER:- 4.1 DECISION :- I HAVE CONSIDERED THE OBSERVATION OF THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS THE CONTENTION RAIS ED BY THE AR OF THE APPELLANT IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION. THE APPELLANT IS A TRADER ION WASTE ITA NO. 2073/AHD/2013 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NO.22/AHD/2014 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. LALIT GARG (HUF) ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 4 - PAPER AND IS PURCHASING THE WASTE PAPER AND OTHER S IMILAR SCRAPS FROM SMALL TIME VENDORS WHO ARE POPULARLY KNOWN AS RADDI WALLAS. SUCH RADDIWALLAS COLLECT WASTE ITEMS FROM DIFFERENCE LOC ATIONS IN AND AROUND VAPI INDUSTRIAL TOWN AND FINALLY SOLD THE WASTE PAP ER SO COLLECTED TO THE MIDDLEMAN TRADERS LIKE THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT PURCHASE SUCH WASTE PAPER COLLECTED ON A DAY TO DAY BASIS, ACCUMU LATE THE SAME IN QUANTITIES AND THEREAFTER SELL THE SAME TO THE END USERS I.E. PAPER MILLS. THE PAPER MILLS PURCHASES THESE ITEMS IN QUANTITIES FROM THE MARKET CONSISTING OF THE TRADERS LIKE THE APPELLANT AT THE FIRST LEVEL AND RADDIWALLAS IN THE SECOND LEVEL. THE PURCHASE PRICE OF WASTE PAPER IS FIXED BY THE GUJARAT PAPER MILLS ASSOCIATION(GPNA) AND AS POINTED OUT BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE RATE OF EACH TON OF WASTE PAPER IS AROUND RS.8,000/- IN THE VAPI INDUSTRIAL TOWN WHERE THERE ARE 45 TO 50 SMALL SCALE PAPER MILLS. THE PAPER MILLS ASSOCIATIO N FIXED UP SUCH PURCHASE PRICE TO HAVE A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD FOR TH E MEMBERS BY ENSURING UNIFORM IMPACT OF COST OF RAW MATERIALS I.E. WASTE PAPER. THE WASTE PAPER TRADERS LIKE THE APPELLANT OBTAIN VAT REGISTR ATION AND OTHER REQUIRED GOVERNMENT PERMISSIONS AND DISCLOSE TO THE VAT DEPARTMENT THEIR TURNOVER AND OTHER DETAILS ON A REGULAR BASIS THROUGH MANDATORY VAT RETURNS AND THE VAT AUTHORITIES MAKE AN ASSESSM ENT UNDER THE VAT LAW AND DETERMINE THE TAX LIABILITY ON AN YEAR TO YEAR BASIS. 4.2 THE DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE BY THE AO MAINLY BECAUSE THE APPELLANT COULD NOT PRODUCE PROPER EVIDENCE IN SUPP ORT OF THE TOTAL PURCHASES MADE AND ACCORDING TO THE AO THE NATURE O F WASTE PAPER BUSINESS ENABLES PAPER MILLS TO REDUCE THEIR INCIDE NCE OF TAXABLE. ADMITTEDLY, THE NATURE OF BUSINESS AND ALL FACTUAL ASPECT OF THE SAME HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED BY THE APPELLANT AND HAS NOT BE EN DISPUTED BY THE AO. A.LSO, ADMITTEDLY, THE AO HAS DOUBTED THE PURCH ASES MADE BY THE APPELLANT BUT HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY INSTANC E OF WASTE PAPER PURCHASES MADE BY THE CUSTOMERS OF THE APPLICANT (P APER MILLS) AS BEING FOUND TO BE BOGUS ON INFLATED. THE AO HAS N OT DISPUTED THE NATURE OF BUSINESS CARRIED OUT BY THE APPELLANT AND HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY INSTANCE OF TAX PLANNING BY ANY PAPER MILLS SPE CIFICALLY TO FORM AN OPINION AS SUCH. THE APPELLANT IS A TRADER IN AN UN ORGANIZED SECTOR, THE AO HAS NOT DOUBTED THE SALES FIGURE DISCLOSED BY TH E APPELLANT. ITA NO. 2073/AHD/2013 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NO.22/AHD/2014 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. LALIT GARG (HUF) ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 5 - CONSIDERING THAT THE PAPER MILLS ASSOCIATION HAS FI XED THE PRICE FOR PURCHASES OF WASTE PAPER FROM THE TRADER THE SCOPE FOR MANIPULATED SALE PRICE IS NOT ESTABLISHED NOR CAN BE INFERRED. THERE IS NO CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO CONCLUDE THAT THE WASTE PAPER SUPPLIER HAVE HIGHER THAN NORMAL GROSS MARGIN ON SALE ONLY BECAUS E THEY PURCHASE FROM SMALL TIME SCRAP VENDORS. 4.3 FURTHER, IT WAS ALSO BROUGHT TO MY NOTICE THAT IN THE CENTRAL CIRCLE,SURAT (DEALING WITH SEARCH ASSESSMENTS) SIMI LAR CASES WERE ASSESSED DURING THE CALENDAR YEAR 2011 WHEREIN, THE ASSESSMENT AUTHORITIES CONSIDERED ALL FACTS OF THE CASE WHICH IS VERY SIMILAR TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF THIS AND HAVE ESTIMATE THE GRO SS PROFIT AND MADE AN ADDITION OF 0.5% TO 0.75% OF THE TURNOVER AS INCOME ON THE BASIS OF SAME FACTS AND ISSUES IN DISPUTE. 4.4 THE APPELLANT HAD FURNISHED QUANTITATIVE DE TAILS OF PURCHASES AND STOCK ALONG WITH THE TAX AUDIT RETURN AND HAS DISCL OSE A SUM OF RS. 17,36,499/- AS GROSS PROFIT (G.P.), WHICH WORKS OUT TO 7% OF TOTAL TURNOVER. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE NATURE OF THE BUS INESS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOUBTED THE PROFITABILITY OF THE TRADING RE SULTS OF THE APPELLANT. AS A RESULT, THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT BY DIS ALLOWING A PORTION OF THE PURCHASE VALUE OF THE APPELLANT. I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT WASTE PAPER COLLECTION AND SUPPLYING THE SAME TO THE TRADERS LIKE THE APPELLANT ARE CARRIED ON BY SMALL TIME COLLECTO RS, WHO BELONG TO UNORGANIZED POOR SECTION OF THE SOCIETY. I AGREE WI TH THE AO TO THE EXTENT THAT THE TRADERS LIKE THE APPELLANT SHOULD C OMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME-TAX LAW IN MAINTENANCE OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER PARTICULARS REQUIRED FOR THE PURPOSES OF ASSESSMENT. IN THIS CASE, CONSIDERING THE PECULIAR NATURE OF THE BUSINE SS AND THE MODUS OPERANDI REQUIRED FOR CARRYING OUT THE BUSINESS, TH E INFERENCE HAVE TO BE DERIVED FROM ALL THE FACTS IN ENTIRETY. ADMITTED LY, THERE IS NO DISPUTE AS REGARDS THE QUANTUM OF SALES. THERE IS NO POSSIB ILITY OF WASTE PAPER TRADERS LIKE THE APPELLANT ACTING AS CONDUITS FOR T AX PLANNING ON BEHALF OF THE PAPER MILLS. THE AO HIMSELF HAS OBSERVED THA T THE PURCHASE PRICE IS FIXED BY THE GPMA. THE TRADERS LIKE THE AP PELLANT ARE DEPENDENT UPON A FEW PAPER MILLS FOR THEIR BUSINESS . IN VIEW OF THESE ITA NO. 2073/AHD/2013 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NO.22/AHD/2014 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. LALIT GARG (HUF) ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 6 - FACTS, I AM UNABLE TO AGREE WITH THE AO THAT AN AD- HOC ADDITION OF 15% OF THE PURCHASE VALUE SHALL BE MADE TO DETERMINE TH E FAIR QUANTUM OF TAXABLE PROFIT. 4.5 AS POINTED OUT BY THE APPELLANT THE CENTRA L CIRCLE, SURAT HAS COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT OF SIMILAR TRADERS BY ESTI MATING THE GROSS PROFIT AND ENHANCED THE RATE BETWEEN 0.5% TO '0.75% BEING THE FACTS SIMILAR 1 TO THE APPELLANT. THIS INDICATES THAT THIS TRADING ACTIVITY IS HIGH VOLUME LOW MARGIN BUSINESS. I HAVE ALSO SPARED MY T HOUGHTS ON VARIOUS ASPECTS OF THE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES SUCH AS (I) WHAT ARE THE ITEMS COVERED UNDER THIS TRADE.,(II) SOURCE OF WASTE PAPERS AND O THER ITEMS TRADED BY THE APPELLANT, (II) HOW COST OF THE GOODS IS DETERM INED,(IV) MODUS OPERAND! OF THE TRADING ACTIVITIES,(V) METHODS OF A CCOUNTING FOLLOWED AND (VI) THE SALE-PURCHASE RATIO. I HAVE ALSO PERUS ED THE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY DY. CIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3 ,SURAT IN THE CASE OF M/S. PAPER SALES CORPORATION, WHEREIN, THE AO HA D MADE G.P./ ADDITION OF 0.50% TO O.75%.THE MARKET RULE IN THIS TRADE IS THAT AS THE TURNOVER INCREASES THE G.P./N.P. DECLINES MARGINALL Y. CONSIDERING THE CASE IN TOTALITY AND THE NATURE OF TRADE, IT IS SAF E TO SAY THAT 15% MARGIN IN THIS TRADE IS NOT POSSIBLE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANC ES, FOR THE SAKE OF JUSTICE AND FAIRNESS, I CONSIDER THE N.P. RAT SHOUL D APPLY BETWEEN 2-3 % DEPENDING ON THE TURNOVER. AS MENTIONED EARLIER, HI GHER THE TURNOVER, THE GP/NP IS LOWER. IN THIS CASE, THE APPELLANT HA D SHOWN GP/NP AT 2.35%/2.68% RESPECTIVELY. THUS, APPLYING THE GENERA L RULES, IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW, THE N.P. IS ESTIMATED AT 3% AS AGA INST 2,.68% DISCLOSED BY THE APPELLANT WILL MEET THE JUSTICE. A CCORDINGLY, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ADOPT NP AT THE RATE 3% FOR DETERMINING THE TAXABLE INCOME IN THIS CASE. THUS, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A), REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND ASSESSEE HAS RAISED CROSS-OBJECTIONS. 4.1. BEFORE US, LD.SR.DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF AO. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD.AR REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE AO AND LD.CIT(A) ITA NO. 2073/AHD/2013 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NO.22/AHD/2014 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. LALIT GARG (HUF) ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 7 - AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT LD.CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO H AVE ESTIMATED THE NET PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE AT 3% AS AGAINST 2.68% DISCL OSED BY THE ASSESSEE. LD.AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ON IDENTICAL FACTS, TH E COORDINATE BENCH (ITAT A BENCH AHMEDABAD) OF TRIBUNAL IN OTHER CA SES HAVE ESTIMATED THE NET PROFIT AT 2%. HE PLACED ON RECOR D THE COPY OF THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. SHRI GURFRAN A.CHA UDHARI IN ITA NO.1360 & 1552/AHD/2012 FOR AY 2006-07, ORDER DATED 11/03/2016 AND DECISION OF ITAT B BENCH AHMEDABAD IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. TAYAB YUNUS BARUDGAR ORDER DATED 27/05/2016. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS WITH RESPECT TO DI SALLOWANCE OF PURCHASE ON ADHOC BASIS BY THE AO. WE FIND THAT THE LD.CIT( A) WHILE GRANTING PARTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE HAS NOTED THAT ASSES SEE IS TRADER OF WASTE- PAPER AND PURCHASER OF WASTER-PAPER AND ASSESSEE PU RCHASES IT FROM SMALL TIME VENDORS AND IN TURN THE WASTE-PAPER IS SUPPLIE D TO THE PAPER-MILLS. HE HAS FURTHER GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE PURCHASE PR ICE OF WASTE-PAPER IS FIXED BY THE GUJARAT PAPER MILLS ASSOCIATION AND TH E WASTE-PAPER TRADERS HAVE VAT REGISTRATION AND OTHER REQUIRED PERMISSION S AND IT FILES THE DETAILS OF TURNOVER, ETC. THROUGH THE VAT RETURNS B EFORE THE VAT AUTHORITIES. HE HAS FURTHER NOTED THAT AO HAS NOT DOUBTED THE PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE NOR HAS GOT ON RECORD ANY INST ANCE OF WASTE-PAPER PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOUND TO BE BOGUS OR INFLATED. HE HAS ITA NO. 2073/AHD/2013 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NO.22/AHD/2014 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. LALIT GARG (HUF) ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 8 - FURTHER NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED QUANTITAT IVE DETAILS OF PURCHASE AND STOCK ALONGWITH TAX AUDIT REPORT AND HAD SHOWN A GP OF 7% AND THAT IN SIMILAR CASES, THE CENTRAL CIRCLE SURAT HAD ESTI MATED THE GROSS PROFIT AND ENHANCED THE RATE BETWEEN 0.5% TO 0.75%. CONSI DERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS, HE HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT 15% MARGI N IN THE TRADING BUSINESS IS NOT POSSIBLE AND THEREAFTER HE CONSIDER ED THAT THE NET PROFIT RATE COULD BE BETWEEN 2 TO 3% AND THEREAFTER ESTIMA TED THE NET PROFIT RATE AT 3% AS AGAINST 2.68% SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. BEFO RE US, NEITHER THE REVENUE NOR THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF LD.CIT(A). WE FURTHER FIND THAT ON IDENTICAL ISSUE, IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. TAYAB YUNUS BARUDGAR (ITA NO.1351/A HD/2012 AND CO NO.155/2012) VIDE ORDER DATED 27/05/2016 THE COORDI NATE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL HAD DISMISSED THE GROUND OF REVENUE BY HOL DING AS UNDER:- 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD.DR, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITI ES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE LD.CIT(A) WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE IN FAVO UR OF ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THOUGH THE AO HAS DOUBTED THE PURCHASES BUT HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY INSTANCE OF BOGUS OR INFL ATED PURCHASE AND HAS ALSO NOT DOUBTED THE SALES FIGURE DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE HAS FURTHER GIVEN A FINDING THAT PAPER MILL ASSOCIATION HAD FIXED THE PRICE FOR PURCHASES OF WASTE-PAPER FROM THE TRADERS AND, THEREFORE, THE SCOPE OF MANIPULATED SALES PRICE WAS NOT ESTABLISHED AND THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO CONCLUDE THAT WASTER-PAPER SUPPLIER HAV E HIGHER GROSS MARGIN ON SALES ONLY BECAUSE THEIR PURCHASES ARE FR OM SMALL TYPE VENDORS. HE HAS FURTHER GIVEN A FINDING THAT 15% MARGIN OF PROFIT IS NOT POSSIBLE IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE. HE HAS FURTH ER 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 ITA NO. 2073/AHD/2013 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NO.22/AHD/2014 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. LALIT GARG (HUF) ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 9 - BETWEEN 0.5% TO 0.75% ON SIMILAR FACTS AS THAT OF ASSESSEE. HE THEREAFTER AFTER CONSIDERING THE GROSS PROFIT AND NET PROFIT RATIO SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE, ESTIMATED THE NET PROFIT AT 2% AS AGAINST 1.10% DISCLOSED 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 THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, WE D O NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A). THUS, THIS GROUND OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 6. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND FOLL OWING THE DECISION OF COORDINATE BENCH CITED HEREINABOVE, WE FIND NO REAS ON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) AND THUS GROUND OF THE REVEN UE AS WELL ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND THE CRO SS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 31 /0 8 /2016 SD/- SD/- () () (RAJPAL YADAV) ( ANIL CHATURVEDI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 31/ 08 /2016 3..,.../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS ITA NO. 2073/AHD/2013 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NO.22/AHD/2014 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. LALIT GARG (HUF) ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 10 - !'#$#! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. $& / THE APPELLANT 2. '($& / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 456 7 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 7 ( ) / THE CIT(A)-VALSAD 5. 89:'56 , 56/ , 4 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. :<=+ / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, (8' //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION ..4.8.16 (DICTATION-PAD 7- PAG ES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS APPEAL-FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 29.8.16 3. OTHER MEMBER 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S.31.8.16 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 31.8.16 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER