The ITO, Ward-8(1), Ahmedabad V. Totla Wires Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 2454/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 85851 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 28-09-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Rejection of books of accounts; Additional evidence; Corroborative evidences; Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, AHMEDABAD .. , , BEFORE SHRI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGARWAL,VICE PRESIDEN T (AZ) AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. ./ I.T.A.NO.2454/AHD/2011A.Y.2006-07 2. ./ I.T.A.NO.2431/AHD/2011A.Y.2006-07 1. THE ITO WARD-8(1) AHMEDABAD 2. TOTLA WIRES PVT.LTD. AHMEDABAD-380 001 / VS. 1.TOTLA WIRES PVT.LTD. 3 RD FLOOR, KRISHNA COMPLEX OPP. BALA HANUMAN MANDIR GANDHI ROAD AHMEDABAD-380 001 2.THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-8(1),AHMEDABAD ! '# ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AABCT 8074 B ( !% / APPELLANTS ) .. ( &'!% / RESPONDENTS ) REVENUE BY : SHRI NIMESH YADAV, SR.DR ASSESSEE BY : -NONE- ( )* +# / DATE OF HEARING 19/03/2015 ,-./ * +# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 27/03/2015 '/ O R D E R PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THESE CROSS-APPEALS BY THE REVENUE AND THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-XIV, AHMEDABAD (CIT(A) IN SHORT) DATED 04/07/2011 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2006-07. ITA NO.2454/AHD/2011 (BY REVENUE) AND ITA NO.2431/AHD/2011(ASSESSEE ) INCOME TAX OFFICER VS. TOTLA WIRES PVT.LTD. ASST.YEAR 2006-07 (CROSS-APPEALS) - 2 - 2. NO ONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE. NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE FIXING THE DATE FOR HEARING OF THE APPEAL ON 19/03/2015 BY REGD.POST AD [ RG 26683606 3 IN - AS PER EVIDENCE ON RECORD] WHICH HAS BEEN RETURNED BY THE POSTAL AUTHO RITIES WITH REMARKS LEFT. SINCE NO NEW ADDRESS HAS BEEN FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE IT IS PRESUMED THAT NOTICE IS DULY SERVED , HENCE THE APPEALS WERE TAKEN UP FOR HEARING IN THE ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSEE . 3. FIRST, WE TAKE UP THE REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO.2454/AHD/2011 FOR AY 2006-07. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWI NG GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-XIV, AH MEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN RESTRICTING THE AD DITION MADE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.14,78,543/- AS AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS.50,00,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF G.P. 2. THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-XIV, AH MEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE DISAL LOWANCE OF RS.2,08,802/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCO UNT OF COMMISSION EXPENSES. 3. THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS)-XIV, AHM EDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ADMITTING ADDITIONAL E VIDENCES IN VIOLATION OF RULE 46A. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS)-XIV, AHMEDAB AD OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. IT IS THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD.CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-XIV, AHMEDABAD MAY BE SET-ASID E AND THAT OF THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. ITA NO.2454/AHD/2011 (BY REVENUE) AND ITA NO.2431/AHD/2011(ASSESSEE ) INCOME TAX OFFICER VS. TOTLA WIRES PVT.LTD. ASST.YEAR 2006-07 (CROSS-APPEALS) - 3 - 3.1. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143( 3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) WAS FRAMED VIDE ORDER DATED 05/02/2008, THEREBY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO IN SHORT) MADE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF FALL IN GP AMOUNTING TO RS.5 0 LACS AND ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF COMMISSION EXPEN SES AMOUNTING TO RS.2,08,802/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), WHO AFTER CONSIDERI NG THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE RESTRICTED THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUN T OF FALL IN GP TO RS.14,78,543/- AS AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS.50 LAC S MADE BY THE AO AND DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.2,08,802/- MADE ON ACCO UNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF COMMISSION EXPENSES. 4. FIRST GROUND IS AGAINST IN RESTRICTING THE ADDIT ION MADE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.14,78,543/-. THE LD.SR.DR SUPPORTED THE ORD ER OF THE AO AND SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN D ELETING THE ADDITION. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS POINTED OUT THAT THERE WAS A STEEP FALL IN GP FROM 10.78% IN THE PRECEDING YEAR TO 3.62% IN T HE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD.SR.DR, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITI ES BELOW. WE FIND THAT ITA NO.2454/AHD/2011 (BY REVENUE) AND ITA NO.2431/AHD/2011(ASSESSEE ) INCOME TAX OFFICER VS. TOTLA WIRES PVT.LTD. ASST.YEAR 2006-07 (CROSS-APPEALS) - 4 - THE LD.CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS, H AS DECIDED THIS ISSUE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 4,4 DECISION : I HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AN D THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED BY THE ID.AR OF THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT HAS DISPUTED THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF G. P. RATE AND ALSO THE DISALLOWANCE OF COMMISSION EXPENSES BY WAY OF ONE SINGLE GROUND OF APPEAL. SINCE THE ISSUE S ARE DIFFERENT, THESE ARE BEING DEALT SEPARATELY FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY AND CONVENIENCE. (A) ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF GROSS PROFIT: IT IS SEEN FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSES SING OFFICER HAS REJECTED THE BOOK RESULT OF THE ASSESSEE BY INVOKING THE PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 145(3) OF THE I, T, ACT, AFTER REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, HE MADE AN ESTIMATED ADDITION OF RS.50 LACS IN RESPECT OF GROSS PROFIT OF THE APPELL ANT AS HE DID NOT FIND THE G. P. RATE TO BE REASONABLE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GIVEN COGENT REASONS FOR REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE REJECTION OF B OOKS OF ACCOUNTS WAS, THEREFORE, PROPER AND IS UPHELD. REGARDING THE ISSUE OF REASONABLENESS OF ESTIMATED ADDITION, IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE COURSE O F APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THROUGH HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS ORAL ARG UMENTS BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED THAT THE A, O. WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DOI NG THE SAME. THE MAIN POINTS OF VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS MADE BY HIM DURING TH E COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS ARE SUMMARIZED AS UNDER: (I) THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED QUANTIFY DETAILS O F EACH ITEMS PURCHASED AND SOLD BY HIM. (II) THE QUANTITY AND VALUE WISE COMPARISON OF PRE VIOUS YEAR WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE HAS ALSO BEEN SUBMITTED. (III) COPIES OF ALL PURCHASE BILLS AND SALE BIL LS HAVE BEEN FURNISHED. (IV) THE APPELLANT WAS DEALING IN FOURTEEN DIFFERE NT ITEMS OUT OF WHICH THE MAIN ITEMS WERE CABLES AND WIRES, INSULATED SCRAP A ND COPPER SCRAP. THE PROFIT MARGIN IN EACH ITEM OF SCRAP IS DIFFEREN T. (V) THERE IS A HUGE INCREASE IN TURNOVER AS COMPARE D TO PREVIOUS YEAR AND, THEREFORE, THE G. P. RATE WAS BOUND TO GO DOWN . THE TURNOVER THIS YEAR WAS RS.10.15 CRORE AS AGAINST RS.2.16 CRO RE IN THE LAST YEAR. (VI) SINCE THE APPELLANT HAS DEALT IN DIFFERENT IT EMS OF SCRAP, THIS YEAR THE G. P. RATIO WAS NOT COMPARABLE WITH THE PRECEDING Y EAR. ITA NO.2454/AHD/2011 (BY REVENUE) AND ITA NO.2431/AHD/2011(ASSESSEE ) INCOME TAX OFFICER VS. TOTLA WIRES PVT.LTD. ASST.YEAR 2006-07 (CROSS-APPEALS) - 5 - (VII) THE APPELLANT MADE SALES ON C ONSIGNMENT TO CONSIGNMENT BASIS, AND THEREFORE, YIELDED LOW G, P. (VIII) THE G. P, RATE WAS HIGHER IN A. Y . 2005-06 (13.73%) ON ACCOUNT OF HIGH G. P. RATE IN A SINGLE TRANSACTION. (IX) IN RESPECT OF INSULATED SCRAP, IF FIFO METHOD IS APPLIED THE G. P. RATE WOULD BE HIGH. HOWEVER, IF LOT TO LOT METHOD IS APP LIED, AS THE APPELLANT HAS SOLD THE SCRAP ON LOT BASIS IN ALMOST ALL TRANSACTIONS, THERE WOULD BE NO DIFFERENCE IN GP. APART FROM THE ABOVE POINTS, THE APPELLANT HAS MADE GENERAL SUBMISSIONS REGARDING ACCEPTANCE OF G, P. RATE SHOWN BY HIM. TH E GENERAL SUBMISSIONS HAVE BEEN REPRODUCED IN THE EARLIER PART OF THIS ORDER, THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO SUBMITTED CHARTS SHOWING WORKING OF G. P. RATE BY F IFO METHOD AND LOT TO LOT METHOD FOR A. Y, 2005-06 AND THE PRESENT A. Y. AN EXAMINATION OF THE VARIOUS ITEMS OF SALE MADE BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE YEAR, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE FOLLOWING MAIN ITEMS HAVE BEEN SOLD BY HIM DURI NG THE YEAR. SL.NO. ITEMS A.Y. 2006-07 A.Y. 2005-06 QUANTITY SALE VALUE (RS.) QUANTITY SALE VALUE (RS.) 1. CABLES AND WIRE(MTRS) 456361 1,97,13,230 5,54,846 1,54,49,900 2. INSULATED SCRAP 233668 3,83,65,589 35,995 53,45, 839 3. COPPER SCRAP 135932 3,58,30,749 NIL NIL 4. ALUMINIUM SCRAP 41420 49,52,783 NIL NIL 5. LDP GRANULES 20680 10,44,306 NIL NIL 6. COPPER INSULATED CABLE SCRAP 3548 9,04,740 NIL NIL BESIDES THIS, THERE ARE SEVERAL OTHER ITEMS BUT THE SALE VALUE IS BELOW RS. 5 LACS AND, THEREFORE, THE SAME ARE NOT MENTIONED ABO VE AS IT WILL NOT AFFECT THE COMPUTATION OF G. P. OUT OF THE ABOVE ITEMS, THE ITEMS WHICH WERE COMMON IN EARLIER YEARS WERE ITEMS AT SL. NO.1 & SI. NO. 2 I.E. CABLES AND WIRES (MTRS.) AND INSULATED SCRAP. THE A. O, IN HIS REMAND REPORT HAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THERE IS A STEEP DECLINE IN RESPECT OF G. P. IN THE TRADING OF INSUL ATED WIRES FROM 8.3% TO 1.66% I.E. BY ABOUT 7%. SIMILARLY, THERE WAS A DECL INE OF G. P. OF CABLES AND WIRES (MTRS.) BY 2%. THE OVERALL G. P. RATE SHOWN B Y THE APPELLANT IN THE PRESENT YEAR WAS 3.62% AS AGAINST 10.78% IN THE PRE CEDING YEAR. ITA NO.2454/AHD/2011 (BY REVENUE) AND ITA NO.2431/AHD/2011(ASSESSEE ) INCOME TAX OFFICER VS. TOTLA WIRES PVT.LTD. ASST.YEAR 2006-07 (CROSS-APPEALS) - 6 - AFTER CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS, WRITTEN SUBMISSI ON BY THE APPELLANT AND THE REMAND REPORT OF THE A. O., I AM OF THE OPINION THA T THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING AN ESTIMATED ADDITION OF RS .50 LACS. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN PROPER HAD THE A. O. MADE ANALYSIS OF VARIOUS DATA / INFORMATION IN RESPECT OF SALE OF DIFFERENT VARIETIES OF SCRAP SUBMITTED BY T HE APPELLANT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. ANY ADDITION ON L UMPSUM BASIS BY REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS DEFEATS THE VERY PU RPOSE OF REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. IN THIS CASE, SUFFICIENT INFORMATION I N RESPECT OF ITEMS OF PURCHASE AND SALE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT AND, T HEREFORE, THE ADDITION SHOULD BE BASED ON THE SPECIFIC INFORMATION. AS IS CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE TABLE, THAT THE MAIN ITEM WHICH HAS RESULTED IN DECLINE OF G. P, FOR THE CURRENT YEAR IS INSULATED SCRAP. THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE G, P. RATE SHOULD BE TAKEN ON LOT TO LOT BASIS AS IT GIVES A CLEAR PI CTURE OF THE PROFIT MARGIN OF THE APPELLANT HAS SOME FORCE. HOWEVER, THE COMPA RISON OF THE G. P. RATE OF TWO YEARS CANNOT BE MADE ON LOT TO LOT BASIS AS IT WILL NOT GIVE PROPER RESULT. THERE IS A FORCE IN THE APPELLANT'S SUBMISS ION THAT THE QUALITY OF SCRAP VARIES FROM YEAR TO YEAR AND IT CANNOT BE STRICTLY COMPARED WITH THE EARLIER YEARS AND ON ACCOUNT OF HUGE INCREASE IN TURNOVER, THE G, P. RATE CANNOT BE AS HIGH AS IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR. IT WAS ALSO POINTED O UT BY THE APPELLANT THAT THERE WAS HIGH PROFIT MARGIN IN ONE TRANSACTION. AS PER THE FIFO METHOD, THE G. P. RATE IN RESPECT OF INSULATED SCRAP FOR A. Y. 2005-06 WAS 7.65% WHEREAS FOR A. Y. 2006-07, IT WAS 1.11%, HOWEVER, BY LOT TO LOT METHOD, THE G. P. RATE FOR LAST YEAR WAS 3.26% AS AGAINST 1.66% FOR T HE PRESENT YEAR. AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE FACTS, AND CIRCUMSTANCES, IT WO ULD MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE IF G, P. RATE FOR THE CURRENT YEAR IS TAKEN @ 5%. T HE APPELLANT HAS ALREADY SHOWN A G. P. RATE OF 1.66%. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADD ITION @ 3.34% OF THE G. P. WHICH WORKS OUT TO RS.12,81,410/- IS SUSTAINED IN R ESPECT OF INSULATED SCRAP. THE OTHER MAJOR ITEMS OF SCRAP WHICH CAN BE COMPARE D WITH THE FIGURES OF PREVIOUS YEAR IS CABLES AND WIRES MTRS. THERE IS A DECLINE OF ABOUT 2% IN THE PRESENT YEAR. THERE IS A FORCE IN THE APPELLANT'S S UBMISSION THAT THE QUALITY OF SCRAP VARIES FROM YEAR TO YEAR AND IT CANNOT BE STR ICTLY COMPARED WITH THE EARLIER YEARS. HOWEVER, SINCE THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO CORRECTLY FURNISH THE. DETAILS OF OPENING STOCK, CLOSING STOC K AND SUCH OTHER DETAILS HAS BEEN MENTIONED BY THE A. O. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER , THE G. P. SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. CONSIDERING ALL T HE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, IT WOULD BE JUDICIOUS TO MAKE AN ADD ITION ON ACCOUNT OF DECLINE OF G. P. RATE BY INCREASING THE G. P. BY 1% . AFTER APPLYING THIS RATE TO ITA NO.2454/AHD/2011 (BY REVENUE) AND ITA NO.2431/AHD/2011(ASSESSEE ) INCOME TAX OFFICER VS. TOTLA WIRES PVT.LTD. ASST.YEAR 2006-07 (CROSS-APPEALS) - 7 - THE SALE OF THE PRESENT YEAR, THE ADDITION ON THIS ACCOUNT COMES TO RS.1,97,134/-. ACCORDINGLY, AN ADDITION OF RS.12,81,41/- & RS.1,97,134/- TOTALING TO RS.14,78,543/- IS SUSTAINED AS AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS.50 LACS MADE BY THE A. O. 5.1. FROM THE ABOVE FINDING OF THE LD.CIT(A), IT I S EVIDENT THAT THE SAME IS BASED ON SOUND REASONING AND MATERIAL PLACE D BEFORE HIM. THE LD.SR.DR COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE FINDING BY PLACIN G ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL ON RECORD. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICE R HAS NOT GIVEN ANY BASIS FOR ESTIMATING THE PROFIT ON LUMP SUM BASIS. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE INTO THE FINDING OF THE LD.CIT(A), SAME IS HEREBY UPHELD. 6. GROUND NO.2 IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF DISALLOWA NCE OF RS.2,08,802/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSI ON EXPENSES. THE LD.SR.DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO AND SUBMITTE D THAT THE LD.CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD.SR.DR, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITI ES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A FINDING ON FACT, WHICH RE ADS AS UNDER:- 4.4 (B) DISALLOWANCE COMMISSION EXPENSES: ITA NO.2454/AHD/2011 (BY REVENUE) AND ITA NO.2431/AHD/2011(ASSESSEE ) INCOME TAX OFFICER VS. TOTLA WIRES PVT.LTD. ASST.YEAR 2006-07 (CROSS-APPEALS) - 8 - THE A. O. HAD MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.2,08,802/- AS THE APPELLANT COULD NOT FURNISH COMPLETE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE PERSONS TO WHOM ABOVE COMMISSION WAS PAID. IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT TH AT THE TDS HAS BEEN MADE U/S. 194H AND COPIES OF FORM 60A WAS ALSO FILED BY HIM BEFORE THE A. O. HE HAS GIVEN COMPLETE DETAILS MENTIONING THE ADDRESS, PAN AND THE AMOUNT OF COMMISSION PAID TO 3 PERSONS. THE A. O. IN HIS REMA ND REPORT HAS NOT GIVEN ANY COMMENTS ON THE INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY THE AP PELLANT. SINCE, THE APPELLANT HAS GIVEN NECESSARY DETAILS FOR VERIFICA TION OF COMMISSION EXPENSES SUCH AS NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE PERSON, PAN, CONFIR MATION OF THE PERSON AS WELL AS FORM 16A WHICH WAS ISSUED TO THE PERSON TO WHOM THE COMMISSION WAS PAID, THE A. O. WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWIN G THE COMMISSION. THE ADDITION MADE IS ACCORDINGLY DELETED. 7.1. THE ABOVE FINDING ON FACT IS NOT CONTROVERTED BY THE REVENUE BY PLACING ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD. THEREFORE, WE DO N OT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), SAME IS HEREBY UPHELD. THUS, THIS GROUND REVENUES APPEAL IS REJECTED. 8. GROUND NO.3 IS AGAINST IN ADMITTING THE ADDITION AL EVIDENCES IN VIOLATION OF RULE 46A. THE LD.SR.DR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ADMITTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. 8.1. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD.SR.DR. HOWEVER, LD.SR.DR COULD NOT POINT OUT WHAT WERE THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES WHICH WERE A DMITTED BY THE LD.CIT(A). THEREFORE, WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A). THUS, THIS GROUND OF REVEN UES APPEAL IS REJECTED. 9. GROUND NOS. 4 & 5 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE WHICH REQUIRE NO INDEPENDENT ADJUDICATION. ITA NO.2454/AHD/2011 (BY REVENUE) AND ITA NO.2431/AHD/2011(ASSESSEE ) INCOME TAX OFFICER VS. TOTLA WIRES PVT.LTD. ASST.YEAR 2006-07 (CROSS-APPEALS) - 9 - 10. AS A RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO.2454/ AHD/2011 IS DISMISSED. 11. NOW, WE TAKE UP THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO .2431/AHD/2011 FOR AY 2006-07. THE SOLITARY GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS UNDER:- 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDI TION OF RS.14,78,543/- (12,81,410/- & 1,97,134/-) IN RESPEC T OF GP, WHICH IS REQUESTED TO BE DELETED. 11.1 THE LD.SR.DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHO RITIES BELOW. 11.2. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD.SR.DR, PERUSED THE MATER IAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITI ES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS BARRED BY 3 DAYS AND NO PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY HAS BEEN FILED. HOWEVER, IN T HE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE DELAY IS CONDONED AND WE PROCEED TO ADJUDICATE THE GROUND RAISED IN ASSESSEES APPEAL. 12. IN THE REVENUES APPEAL(SUPRA), WE HAVE UPHELD THE FINDING OF THE LD.CIT(A). FOR THE SAME REASONING, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT INTO THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THIS GRO UND OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS REJECTED. ITA NO.2454/AHD/2011 (BY REVENUE) AND ITA NO.2431/AHD/2011(ASSESSEE ) INCOME TAX OFFICER VS. TOTLA WIRES PVT.LTD. ASST.YEAR 2006-07 (CROSS-APPEALS) - 10 - 13. IN THE COMBINED RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVEN UE AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BOTH ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON FRIDAY, THE 27 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2015 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- ( .. ) ( ) ( G.D. AGARWAL ) ( KUL BHARAT ) VICE PRESIDENT (AZ) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 27/ 03 /2015 3+..( , .(../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS !'#$%$&' / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. !% / THE APPELLANT 2. &'!% / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 456 7 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 7 ( ) / THE CIT(A)-XIV, AHMEDABAD 5. 8 9&(56 , +56/ , 4 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 9 ;< ) / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, ' 8& //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 20.3.15(DICTATION-PAD 9- P AGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER ..23.3.15 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.27.3.15 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 27.3.15 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