Shri Nitesh Kasliwal, Burhanpur V. The ITO- Range-1, Burhanpur

ITA 219/IND/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 21922714 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-09-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 17-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA
• Assessee Lawyers: S N AGARWAL; PANKAJ MOGRA CAS
• Keywords: Rejection of books of accounts; Unexplained investment; Business income; Peak credit

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE P.K. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MUKU L KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER PAN NO. AGXPK3246K ITA NO. 219, 220 & 276/IND/2013 A.YS. :2005-06, 2006-07 & 2008-09 SHREE NITESH KASLIWAL, JAVED BHAI KA KARKHANA, NEAR TIBBIA COLLEGE, BURHANPUR VS. INCOME - TAX OFFICER, BURHANPUR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : S/SHRI S.N. AGARWAL AND PANKAJ MOGRA, CAS REVENUE BY : SHRI R.A.VERMA, SR. DR . / // / DATE OF HEARING :11.09.2014 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 19.09.2014 / O R D E R PER P.K.BANSAL, A.M. ALL THESE THREE APPEALS RELATE TO SAME ASSESSEE AND , THEREFORE, THEY ARE DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDE R. 2. GROUND NO. 1 IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 & 2006-07 SINCE NOT PRESSED, IT STANDS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESS ED. 3. GROUND NO. 2 IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06, 2006-07 A ND GROUND NO. 1 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 RELATE TO T HE COMMON ISSUE IN RESPECT OF ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF CHEQUE C LEARING CHARGES BY ESTIMATING THE AMOUNT OF CLEARANCE CHARG ES @ RS. SHRI NITESH KASLIWAL, BURHANPUR I.T.A.NOS. 219, 220 & 276/IND/2013 A.YS. 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2008-09. 2 100/- PER LAKH FOR ONE DAY. BOTH THE PARTIES AGREED THAT THESE GROUNDS MAY BE DISPOSED ON THE BASIS OF THE FACTS R ELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS DISCOUNTING THE CHEQUES AND ENDORSING THEM IN ITS F AVOUR AND GETTING THE CLEARANCE THROUGH KHAMGAON URBAN COOP. BANK LIMITED, BURHANPUR NO.382 AND ALSO BANK ACCOUNT OF SHRI ANIL JOSHI. WHEN COUNTERED, THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED THAT H E USED TO EARN RS. 50/- ON EACH TRANSACTION OF RS. 1 LAKH. TH E ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005- 06, THE TRANSACTION WAS TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 3411465/- AND RS. 947800/- IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF SHRI ANIL JOSHI TOTALING TO RS. 4359265/- AND ACCORDINGLY HE ADDED THE SUM OF RS. 8600/-. WHE N THE MATTER WENT BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) NOTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN THE DISCOUNTING CHARGES @ RS. 100 PER LAKH FOR ONE DAY INSTEAD OF TWO DAYS. THEREFORE , HE REDUCED THE ADDITION ON THIS ACCOUNT TO RS. 4300/-. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SAME. WE NOTED THAT THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUSTAINED BY THE LD.CI T(A) ON THE BASIS OF THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS BEEN SHRI NITESH KASLIWAL, BURHANPUR I.T.A.NOS. 219, 220 & 276/IND/2013 A.YS. 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2008-09. 3 CHARGED RS. 50/- PER LAKH PER TRANSACTION. THIS IS THE FACT THAT THE CLEARING OF THE CHEQUES TAKES TWO DAYS. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT OUT ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CHARGED RS. 50/- PER LAKH PER TRANSACTION. WE, THER EFORE, REDUCE THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF DISCOUNTING CHARGES EA RNED BY THE ASSESSEE @ RS. 50/- PER TRANSACTION. THUS, THE ADDI TION IS REDUCED TO RS. 2150/- IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, R S. 23,615/- IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND RS. 2500/-IN ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2008-09. THIS IS THE SETTLED PRINCIPLES OF LAW THAT APPARENT IS REAL. THE ONUS IS ON THE PARTY, WHO, ALLEGES THAT T HE APPARENT IS NOT REAL. THUS, THIS GROUND IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 6. GROUND NO. 3 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AND GROUND NO.2 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 RELATE TO THE SAME ISSUE REGARDING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN CHEQUE CLEARING BUSINESS. BOTH THE PARTIES AGREED THAT THE SE GROUNDS MAY BE DISPOSED ON THE BASIS OF THE FACTS RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 7. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT SINCE THE ASSES SEE WAS ENGAGED IN CHEQUE DISCOUNTING BUSINESS, THEREFORE, HE TOOK 10 % OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS. 4357997/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT AND ADDED THE SAME IN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE SHRI NITESH KASLIWAL, BURHANPUR I.T.A.NOS. 219, 220 & 276/IND/2013 A.YS. 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2008-09. 4 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. SIMILARLY A SUM OF RS. 445 608/- WAS ADDED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 8. THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) REDUCED THE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF UNEXPLAIN ED INVESTMENT TO THE EXTENT OF 5 % OF THE TOTAL TRANSACTION. THUS , THE ADDITION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 WAS REDUCED TO RS. 217900/- IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 REDUCED TO RS. 2238904/-. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SAME. WE NOTED THAT PEAK FOR THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 WAS RS. 46015/- WHILE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YE AR 2008-09, IT WAS RS. 5524/-. OVER ALL PEAK FOR ALL THE YEARS WAS AS ON 30 TH DECEMBER, 2003, AT RS. 95317/- I.E. IN THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2004-05. THEREFORE, THE PEAK FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 2005-06 GETS SET-OFF AGAINST THE PEAK RELATING TO THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2004-05. AT THE MOST, THE ADDITION IN THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2004- 05 CAN BE MADE IN RESPECT OF THE UNEXPLAINED INVEST MENT TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 95,387/-. ONCE THE PEAK FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2004-05 IS CONSIDERED AT RS. 95387/-, WHICH IS HIG HER THAN THE PEAK FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AND 2008-09, W E ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NO ADDITION IN RESPECT OF UNEXPLAINED INV ESTMENT CAN BE MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AND 2008-09. WE, SHRI NITESH KASLIWAL, BURHANPUR I.T.A.NOS. 219, 220 & 276/IND/2013 A.YS. 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2008-09. 5 ACCORDINGLY, SET-ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND DELETE THE ADDITION SUSTAINED FOR BOTH THE YEARS. T HUS, THE GROUND NO. 3 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AND GROUND NO.2 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 ARE ALLOWED. 10. GROUND NO. 4 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, GROUND NO. 5 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND GROUND NO. 3 IN ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2008-09 RELATE TO THE SAME ISSUE RELATING TO T HE INCOME FROM JOB WORK REVALUED OF POWER LOOM CLOTH. BOTH THE PAR TIES AGREED THAT THESE GROUNDS MAY BE DISPOSED ON THE BASIS OF THE FACTS RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 11. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S DONE JOB WORK FOR MANUFACTURE OF POWER LOOM CLOTH. DURIN G THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN 23 LOOMS ON HIRE AT THE PREMISES OF HARISH PODDAR, SALIWADA, BU RHANPUR. INCOME FROM JOB WORK WAS NOT FOUND IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT HE INCURRED NET LOSS OF RS. 44 851/- IN THIS BUSINESS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOOK THE NET INCOME FROM EACH LOOM @ RS. 200/- PER MONTH AND, THEREFORE, HE MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 55,200/- ( 200 X 23 X 12 ). 12. THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). BEFO RE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS NOT SHRI NITESH KASLIWAL, BURHANPUR I.T.A.NOS. 219, 220 & 276/IND/2013 A.YS. 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2008-09. 6 EARNED INCOME BUT INCURRED LOSS OF RS. 44,851/-WHIC H WAS DULY DEBITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. THE LD. CIT (A) NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PREPARED INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ST ATEMENT ON THE BASIS OF THE PAPERS FOUND AND SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF THE SURVEY AND CALCULATED NET LOSS AT RS. 44,851/-, BUT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN ANY SUCH ACTIVITY IN THE RET URN OF INCOME, HE, THEREFORE, DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER TO ESTIMATE THE INCOME @ RS.100/- PER LOOM PER MONTH AND, THERE FORE, REDUCED THE ADDITION TO RS. 27,600/-. 13. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SAME ALONGWITH THE ORDERS OF TAX AUT HORITIES BELOW. WE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ESTI MATED THE INCOME FROM JOB WORK IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 RS .55,200/- WHICH WAS REDUCED BY THE LD.CIT(A) AT RS. 27,600/-. SIMILARLY, IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ESTIMATED THE INCOME AT RS. 1,20,000/- BY THE LD.CIT(A) REDUCING TO RS. 48000/- IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER HAS ESTIMATED THE INCOME AT RS. 85000/- WHILE THE C IT(A) REDUCED IT TO RS. 28000/-. THIS IS A FACT THAT NO I NCOME HAS BEEN SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN FILED BY HIM. THIS TIME THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT CONTROVERTED BY TH E LD. SHRI NITESH KASLIWAL, BURHANPUR I.T.A.NOS. 219, 220 & 276/IND/2013 A.YS. 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2008-09. 7 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE EVEN THOUGH HE HAS BEEN VEHEMENTLY CONTENDED BEFORE US THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EARNE D ANY INCOME BUT INCURRED THE LOSS FROM THIS ACTIVITY. WE NOTED THAT THE INCOME HAS BEEN ESTIMATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER @ RS. 2 00/- PER MONTH PER LOOM, WHICH WAS REDUCED TO BY THE LD.CIT( A) @ RS. 100/- PER LOOM PER MONTH. THE INCOME FROM THIS ACTI VITY HAS MERELY BEEN ESTIMATED. NO EVIDENCE OR COGENT MATERI AL WAS BROUGHT TO OUR KNOWLEDGE BY THE LD. SENIOR DR, EVEN THOUGH THERE HAD BEEN SURVEY IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, BUT SINCE IT IS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF THE SURVEY THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS HIRED THE LOOMS, WE, THEREFORE, HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE MU ST HAVE DERIVED INCOME FROM THIS ACTIVITY. THIS IS AN UNDIS PUTED FACT THAT ESTIMATE IS ALWAYS AN ESTIMATE. ESTIMATE HOWSOEVER STRONG IT MAY BE BUT CANNOT TAKE PLACE OF ACTUAL. WE, THEREFORE, KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, REDUCE THE ADDITION SUSTAINED BY THE LD.CIT(A) BY 50 % AND, THEREFORE, SUSTAIN THE A DDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 13800/- IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, R S. 24000/- IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND RS. 14000/- IN THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. THUS, THESE GROUNDS IN EACH OF THE AS SESSMENT YEAR ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. SHRI NITESH KASLIWAL, BURHANPUR I.T.A.NOS. 219, 220 & 276/IND/2013 A.YS. 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2008-09. 8 14. GROUND NO. 5 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AND GROUND NO.6 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 RELATE TO THE COMMO N ISSUE RELATING TO THE UNEXPLAINED INCOME OF M/S. M. B. TE XTILE MILLS. 15. BOTH THE PARTIES AGREED THAT THESE GROUNDS SHOULD B E DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF THE FACTS RELATING TO ASSES SMENT YEAR 2005-06. 16. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT COPY OF THE BANK ACCOUNT NO. 1007712010001534 OF IDBI BANK LIMITED A PPEARING IN THE NAME OF SHRI PANNALAL, BURHANPUR, WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY IN THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. T HE ASSESSEE STATED THAT M/S. M.B. TEXTILE MILLS FOUND THE BANK ACCOUNT RELATE TO SAYYED ASIF. STATEMENT OF SAYYED ASIF WAS RECORD ED ON OATH, WHO ACCEPTED THE OWNERSHIP OF M. B. TEXTILE MILLS B UT STATED THAT THE TRANSACTION IN THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT DOES NOT R ELATE TO HIM AND WHEN CONFRONTED THE ASSESSEE, HE STATED THAT TH E INCOME OF RS. 37538/- EARNED FROM M. B. TEXTILES HAS BEEN SET -OFF AGAINST LOSS OF LOOM JOB WORK. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT DURING THE YEAR, THE TOTAL TRANSACTION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 WERE RS. 1601279/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ESTIMATED THE PROFIT THEREON @ 5 % AND MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 81,739/- . SIMILARLY, THE ADDITION WAS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-0 7 AT RS. SHRI NITESH KASLIWAL, BURHANPUR I.T.A.NOS. 219, 220 & 276/IND/2013 A.YS. 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2008-09. 9 29,406/-, WHEN THE MATTER WENT BEFORE THE CIT(A). T HE LD. CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE ADDITION. 17. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SAME WITH THE ORDERS OF THE TAX AUTH ORITIES BELOW. WE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY SUBMITTED THE T RADING AND PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND SHOWN THE NET PROFIT ON THE SALES OF RS. 1634780/- AT RS. 37,530/-. THIS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SIMPLY IGNORED THE TRADING AND PROFIT AND LOSS ACCO UNT AND HAS NOT REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINED IN THIS REGARD. IN OUR OPINION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT MAKE THE ADDITION IN THE NET PROFIT WITHOUT REJECTING TH E BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. WE, THEREFORE, THE DIRECT THE ASSESSING O FFICER TO RESTRICT THE ADDITION FROM BUSINESS AT RS. 37538/- IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. SINCE IN THE ASSESSMENT YE AR 2006-07, WE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CARRIED ON ANY B USINESS. HE HAS SIMPLY RELIED ON THE AMOUNT FROM THE DEBTOR. WE , THEREFORE, DELETE THE ADDITION. THUS, THESE GROUNDS ARE ACCORD INGLY IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED WHILE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ALLOWED. 18. GROUND NO.6 RELATES TO THE UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT I N THE BUSINESS OF M. B. TEXTILES. SHRI NITESH KASLIWAL, BURHANPUR I.T.A.NOS. 219, 220 & 276/IND/2013 A.YS. 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2008-09. 10 19. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 3265956/- IN RESPECT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN T HE BUSINESS IN THE NAME OF M. B. TEXTILES BEING 20 % OF THE TOT AL TURNOVER CARRIED OUT BY THESE CONCERNS. WHILE THE CIT(A) RED UCED THE UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT AT RS. 163478/- BEING 10 % O F THE TOTAL TURNOVER. 20. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SAME. WE NOTED FORM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THIS CONCERN THAT THE PEAK CREDIT WAS RS. 63,788/-. THE WORKING OF THE PEAK IS GIVEN AT PAGE 84 AS SUBMITTED BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER. WE, THEREFORE, REDUCE THE UNDISCLOSED INVE STMENT TO RS. 63788/-. THUS, THIS GROUND IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 21. THIS DISPOSES OF THE APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 2005-06. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 : 22. THE GROUND NOS. 2 , 5 & 6 SINCE STAND DISPOSED OF ALONGWITH APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS, THEREFORE, DO NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION. . 23. NOW ONLY GROUND REMAINS FOR OUR DISPOSAL ARE GROUND NOS. 3 & 4. SHRI NITESH KASLIWAL, BURHANPUR I.T.A.NOS. 219, 220 & 276/IND/2013 A.YS. 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2008-09. 11 24. BOTH THESE GROUNDS RELATING TO THE SUSTENANCE OF TH E ADDITION OF RS. 10,000/- IN RESPECT OF INCOME FROM BROKERAGE OF YARN. 25. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PURSUING TH E ORDERS OF THE TAX AUTHORITIES BELOW, WE NOTED THAT THE SIMILAR ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005- 06 TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 10,440/-, BUT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CH ALLENGE THIS ADDITION. IN THIS YEAR, SIMILAR ADDITION HAS BEEN M ADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT HAS BEEN CHALLENGED BY THE AS SESSEE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY ACCEPTED THE INCOME FROM BROK ERAGE OF THE YARN IN THE EARLIER YEAR IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 5-06, THEREFORE, HE DISMISSED THE GROUND TAKEN IN THE IMP UGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR, AS IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR , THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ADDED ONLY A SUM OF RS. 10,00 0/- INCOME FROM BROKERAGE OF THE YARN WHILE IN THE PREVIOUS YE AR, IT WAS RS. 10,440/-. IN OUR OPINION, NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. WE, THEREFORE, SUSTAIN HE ADDITION OF RS. 10,000/-. THUS, THIS GROUND STANDS DISMISSED. SHRI NITESH KASLIWAL, BURHANPUR I.T.A.NOS. 219, 220 & 276/IND/2013 A.YS. 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2008-09. 12 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09: 26. GROUND NOS. 1, 2 & 3 SINCE STAND DISPOSED OF IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS WHILE DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 27. THE ONLY GROUND REMAINS FOR OUR DISPOSAL IS GROUND NO. 4. 28. GROUND NO. 4 DURING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR RELATERS TO THE INCOME FROM MANUFACTURE OF THE POWE R LOOM CLOTHES. 29. THE FACTS RELATING TO THIS GROUND ARE THAT THE ASSE SSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DONE THE JOB WO RK REGARDING MANUFACTURING OF THE POWER LOOM UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/S. ADINATH ENTERPRISES. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN TH E TOTAL SALES AT RS. 5,16,870/- AND SHOWN THE NET LOSS AT R S. 32,310/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SATISFIED AND, THEREF ORE, ESTIMATED THE NET PROFIT @ 5% AT RS. 25,844/-. THE ASSESSEE W ENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), WHO SUSTAINED THE ADDITION. 30. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SAME ALONGWITH THE ORDERS OF THE TAX AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND HAS SHOWN THE LOSS AT RS. 32,310/- . THE SHRI NITESH KASLIWAL, BURHANPUR I.T.A.NOS. 219, 220 & 276/IND/2013 A.YS. 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2008-09. 13 ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT GIVING ANY REASON THAT HE HAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE SIMPLY ESTIMATED THE PROFIT @ 5% WHICH WAS SUSTAINED BY THE LD.CIT(A). IN OUR OPINION, THE ASSESSING OFF ICER COULD HAVE NOT DISTURBED THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT WITHOUT B RINGING ANY EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY ON RECORD. THE LD. SENIOR DR EVEN THOUGH RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT COULD NOT BRING TO OUR KNOWLEDGE ANY COGENT MATERIAL OR THE E VIDENCE ON THE BASIS OF WHICH IT COULD BE SAID THAT THE ASSESS ING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY ESTIMATED THE PROFIT @ 5%. WE, THEREFORE, D ELETE THE ADDITION. THUS, THIS GROUND STANDS ALLOWED. 31. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. SD/- SD/- (MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT) (P. K. BANSAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT M EMBER INDORE; DATED: 19/09/2014 CPU*SPS SHRI NITESH KASLIWAL, BURHANPUR I.T.A.NOS. 219, 220 & 276/IND/2013 A.YS. 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2008-09. 14 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ! / THE APPELLANT 2. '# ! / THE RESPONDENT. 3. $%$&' # # ( / CONCERNED CIT 4. # # ( ( ) / THE CIT(A), INDORE 5. +,# &' , # # &' , -.% / DR, ITAT, INDORE 6. ,/0 1 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, -# -# -# -# $2 $2 $2 $2 (ASSTT.REGISTRAR) ITAT, IN DORE 1. DATE OF DICTATION- 11.09.2014 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 17.09.2014 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S. .. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT .. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK: 26.09.2014 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 7. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 8. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER