ITO 13(1)(3), MUMBAI V. PLACID TRADELINKS P.LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 2493/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5184 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 06-04-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ABHIRAMA KARTIKEYAN
• Keywords: Rejection of books of accounts; Additional evidence; Assessment record
• Section: 143(3); 133(6); 143(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH C, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.2493/M/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 INCOME TAX OFFICER- 13(1)(3), 2 ND FLOOR, ROOM NO.225, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI - 400020 VS. M/S. PLACID TRADELINKS PVT. LTD., OFFICE NO.36, SHRINAMAN PLAZA, BEHIND SHOPPERS STOP, KANDIVALI (W), MUMBAI 400 067 PAN: AACCP5025F (APPELLANT) (R ESPONDENT) PRESENT FOR: ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ABHIRAMA KARTIKEYAN, A.R. REVENUE BY : SHRI AJAY SINGH, D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 08.01.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05.02.2019 O R D E R PER RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE REVEN UE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23.01.2017 OF THE COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS TH E CIT(A)] RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 20112-13. 2. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS AS UNDER: 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.9,9 4,22,286/- ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPRESSED GROSS PROFIT NOT REALIZING THAT EVEN FOR WARD CONTRACTS ARE GOVERNED BY THE PRICE BAND OF COMMODITIES AND ARE LISTED ON THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE. HE OUGHT TO HAVE COMPARED THE RATES OF FORWARD CONTRAC T SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE, WITH THE ONE PREVAILING ON THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE, BEFOR E DETERMINING THE QUANTUM OF RELIEF. ITA NO.2493/M/2017 M/S. PLACID TRADELINKS PVT. LTD. 2 2. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A ) ON THE GROUNDS BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTE R ALL OR ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. 3. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.9,94,22,286/- BY LD. CIT(A) AS MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF COMMODITY EXCHANGE. 4. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A TR ADER DEALING IN EDIBLE OILS. DURING THE YEAR ASSESSEE E-FILED T HE RETURN OF INCOME ON 29.09.2012 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS.9,86 ,050/- WHICH WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE ACT . THEREAFTER, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED F OR SCRUTINY AND A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS REGISTERED A TURNOVER OF 745.37 CRORE WITH CORRESPONDING PURCHASES OF RS. 744.88 CR , OTH ER INCOME OF RS.3,92,274/- AND EXPENSES CLAIMED OF RS.43,80,697 /-. THE GP DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR WAS 0. 066% AND NP WAS 0.0126%. ON PAGE NO.2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER THE AO HAS APPENDED A TABLE LISTING THEREIN VARIOUS OPPO RTUNITIES AS WERE GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE BUT THE ASSESSEE EITHE R DID NOT COMPLY OR FILED LETTER OF ADJOURNMENTS OR PARTLY FI LED THE DETAILS CALLED FOR. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE WAS ISSUED VA RIOUS SHOW CAUSE NOTICES ON VARIOUS OCCASIONS AS STATED IN PA RA 4.2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSEE COMPLIED WITH THE S HOW CAUSE NOTICE BY FILING AND FURNISHING DETAILS OF SALES/PU RCHASE AGREEMENTS OF HIGH SEAS SALES, BANK STATEMENTS, STO CK REGISTER AND OTHER DETAILS JUSTIFYING THE TRANSACTIONS. THE AO AFTER GOING THROUGH THE DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE CAME TO T HE CONCLUSION THAT THERE WERE MAJOR DIFFERENCES AND UNCONFIRMED TRANSACTIONS ITA NO.2493/M/2017 M/S. PLACID TRADELINKS PVT. LTD. 3 IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WHICH HAS BEEN LISTED BY T HE AO IN PARA 4.3(G) AND FINALLY THE AO REJECTED THE BOOKS O F ACCOUNTS ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WERE SEVERAL DEFECTS IN THE B OOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND SAME WERE NOT MAINTAINED PROPERLY AND IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO CALCULATE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FR OM THE SAID ACCOUNTS AND FINALLY ESTIMATED THE INCOME OF THE A SSESSEE BY APPLYING A GP RATE OF 1.40% TO THE TOTAL TURNOVER O F RS.745,37,00,986/- WHICH WORKS OUT TO RS.10,43,51,8 14/- AND AFTER ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION OF EXPENSES AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF RS.49,29,528/- MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.9,94,22,286/- BY FRAMING ASSESSMENT VIDE ORDER DATE 30.03.2015 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. 5. IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. CIT(A) ALL OWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AND HOLDING AS UNDER: 4.11. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS CAREFULLY. IN VIEW OF THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT THAT REPLIES TO NOTICES U/S 133(6) WERE R ECEIVED BY ASSESSING OFFICER AND THAT TO THAT EXTENT THE COMMENT OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER IS FALSE, CASE RECORDS WERE CALLED FOR AND PERUSED. THE FOLLOWING REPLIES TO NO TICES U/S 133(6) WERE FOUND ON THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS CONTRARY TO WHAT IS STATED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH REFLECTS POORLY ON THE ASSESSING OFFICER. NAME OF PARTY DATE OF REPLY 133(6) TO NOTICE U/S 1. RUCHI OFFSHORE MARKETING P. LTD. 26.03.2015 2. RAGHUNATH (AGENCIES) P. LTD. 17.2.2015 3. NOVA TRADING PVT. LTD, 16.3.2015 4. STRIDE MULTITRADEPVT. LTD. 25.3.2015 5. FRAME IMPEX PVT. LTD, 5.2.2015 6 VISHAL VICTORY OILTECH P. LTD. 19.3.2015 7. IMPERIAL MARKTRADE (I) P. LTD, UNDATED BUT C OVER OF INWARD STAMP DATED 30.3.2015. ITA NO.2493/M/2017 M/S. PLACID TRADELINKS PVT. LTD. 4 THAT EVEN IN REMAND PROCEEDINGS, THIS HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED DOES RAISE LEGITIMATE GRIEVANCE OF LACK OF FAIRNESS OF THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER. IT IS FURTHER SEEN THAT APART FROM THE ABOVE, COPY OF REPLY OF RUCHI I NFRASTRUCTURE LTD. TO THE NOTICE U/S 133(6) SENT THROUGH POSTAL AUTHORITIES WITH DAT E STAMP 30.3.2015 WAS FILED IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BUT HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDER ED IN THE REMAND REPORT. IN THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE LEDGERS OF PARTIES UNDER THE HE AD CREDITORS, CUSTOMERS CREDIT BALANCES, LOANS AND ADVANCES AND DEBTORS WERE FILED STATING THAT ,HE SAME WERE NOT FILED EARLIER AS IT WAS NOT CALLED. LEDGER ACCOUNTS OF ASSESSE IN BOOKS OF PARTIES ALONG WITH THEIR ITR WERE FILED IN RESPECT OF RUCHI SOYA INDUSTRIES LTD,, HIGH TECH REALITIES P. LTD. AND SOYUMM MARKETING P. LTD. AS W ELL AS PARTIES ALREADY LISTED IN THE EARLIER TABLE. 4.12. AS PER THE APPELLANT, IT IS ONLY ON 25.3.2015 THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER INFORMED THE APPELLANT THAT REPLIES TO 133(6) NOTIC E WERE NOT RECEIVED AND SO CALLED DISCREPANCIES IN RESPECT OF CREDITORS AND DEBTORS A ND ASKED FOR COMPLIANCE ON 27.3.2015. THE APPELLANT FOUND THAT IN MANY CASES T HE PARTIES HAD ALREADY REPLIED TO THE NOTICES U/S 133(6). HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING O FFICER HURRIEDLY PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 4.13. NOW LOOKING AT THE REASONS FOR REJECTING BOOK RESULTS OF THE APPELLANT, ONE OF THE REASONS IS THAT REPLIES TO NOTICES U/S 133(6) W ERE NOT RECEIVED. WHILE THIS, IN MY VIEW, DOES NOT FORM A VALID REASON FOR REJECTION OF BOOKS, THE FACT IS THAT SEVERAL REPLIES TO NOTICES U/S 133(6) WERE RECEIVED AND ARE FOUND IN THE CASE RECORDS. AS REGARDS THE OBSERVATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TH AT PURCHASE AND SALE PRICE OF SAME ITEM ON SAME DATE IS DIFFERENT, THE APPELLANT HAS EXPLAINED THAT THE SAME IS BASED ON THE FORWARD CONTRACTS ENTERED INTO EARLIER AND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT APPRECIATED THE BUSINESS. DETAILS IN RESPEC T OF A FEW TRANSACTIONS ARE TABULATED BELOW. PARTY DATE OF FORWARD CONTRACT/ HIGH SEAS SALES BILL CONTRACT DETAIL PRICE 1. RUCHI SOYA IND. LTD. 7.3.2011/31.5.2011 PURCHASE OF CRUDE PALM OIL 2999.287 MT FOR DELIVERY UPTO MAY 2011 55610.50 +/- 5% /MT 2. JAVA IMPEX P. LTD. 7.3.2011/31.5.2011 SALE OF CRUDE PALM OIL 2999.287 MT FOR DELIVERY UP TO MAY 20 11 55611.00 +/- 5% /MT 3. ARCADIA TRADING P. LTD. 8.4.2011/31.5.2011 PURCHASE OF CRUDE PALM OIL 2000 MT FOR DELIVERY UPTO MAY 201 1 51606.25 +/- 5% /MT 4. RUCHI SOYA INDUSTRIES LTD. 3.4.2011/31.5.2011 SALE OF CRUDE PALM OIL 2000 MT FOR DELIVERY UPTOMAV2011 51608.00 +/- 5% /MT ITA NO.2493/M/2017 M/S. PLACID TRADELINKS PVT. LTD. 5 SIMILAR DETAILS OF ALL OTHER CONTRACTS ARE ALSO FIL ED. I FIND THAT DETAILS OF SUCH FORWARD CONTRACTS HAVE BEEN FILED WHICH SUPPORTS THE EXPLAN ATION OF THE APPELLANT. 4.14. IN THE REMAND REPORT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA S HIGHLIGHTED THAT THE TRANSACTION RATES ARE OUTSIDE THE RATES QUOTED ON NCDEX. THE AP PELLANT HAS CLARIFIED THAT THE NCDEX RATES ARE QUOTED AT TWO SPECIFIC TIMES OF THE DAY AND ARE THE SPOT PRICES. THE RATES CAN VARY BASED ON THE PERIOD OF DELIVERY, AND OTHER CONTRACTUAL TERMS SUCH AS CREDIT. 4.15. THE APPELLANT RELIED ON SEVERAL CASE LAWS SUC H AS - MARGABHAIKISANBHAI PATEL & CO VS CIT (1977) 108 I TR 54 (GUJ) 'UNLESS THE TRANSACTION IS PROVED TO BE SHAM OR NOT BONAFIDE , IT IS NOT OPEN TO THE TAX AUTHORITIES TO DISREGARD FIGURES OF TRANSACTION SHO WN IN THE ASSESSEE'S BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS.' - LALCHANDBHAGATAMBICA RAM V CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC) WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT CORRECTNESS OF ACCOUNTS BOOKS CANNOT BE DOUBTED ON SUSPICION AND CONJECTURES. - DHAKESHWARI COTTON MILL LTD. V CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT THE AO IS NOT ENTITLED TO MAKE A PURE GUESS AND MAK E AN ASSESSMENT WITHOUT REFERENCE TO ANY EVIDENCE OR ANY MATERIAL AT ALL. 4.16. NATURE OF BUSINESS OF FORWARD CONTRACTS AND H IGH SEAS SALES HAVE BEEN EXPLAINED BY THE APPELLANT WHICH WAS NOT APPRECIATE D BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE APPELLANT ENTERS INTO FORWARD CONTRACTS WHICH SPECI FIES THE QUANTITY, RATE AND DATE OF DELIVERY. THE TRANSACTIONS ARE SQUARED UP BY ENT ERING INTO ANOTHER FORWARD CONTRACT WHICH SPECIFIES THE QUANTITY RATE AND DATE OF DELIVERY. SOMETIMES PROFIT IS EARNED IN THIS PROCESS AND SOMETIMES LOSSES. THE TW O CORRESPONDING PURCHASE AND SALE FORWARD CONTRACTS ARE ULTIMATELY SETTLED BY DE LIVERY AS HIGH SEAS SALE AND PURCHASE ON THE DESIGNATED DATE WHICH IS A LATER DA TE. THE SPOT RATE ON THE DATE ON WHICH DELIVERY TAKES PLACE AS PER THE TWO CANCELLIN G FORWARD CONTRACTS NEED NOT BE SIMILAR OR EQUAL TO THE RATES OF THE FORWARD CONTRA CTS. IT IS ALSO POSSIBLE THAT SEVERAL FORWARD CONTRACTS WITH VERY DIFFERENT RATES AT WHIC H CONTRACTS WERE ENTERED ARE SQUARED UP ON SAME DATE. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT TH E DIFFERENT RATES ON SAME DATE MEANS THAT THE TRANSACTIONS ARE NOT GENUINE OR PRIC ES ARE HIKED. RATES MUST BE ANALYZED BASED ON DATE ON WHICH THE FORWARD CONTRAC TS ARE ENTERED AND NOT ON THE DATE ON WHICH THE CONTRACTS ARE SETTLED AS HAS BEEN DONE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT VERIFIED FROM THE COR RESPONDING PARTIES THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS. THE PARTIES ARE NOT RE LATED TO APPELLANT AND ARE INDEPENDENTLY FILING THEIR TAX RETURNS. WHILE THE A SSESSMENT ORDER DOES NOT CLEARLY LIST THE DISCREPANCY AND AMOUNTS PARTY WISE THAT WA S UNCONFIRMED, THE APPELLANT HAS GIVEN COMPLETE DETAILS PARTY WISE. THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAS ASSUMED AND COMPUTED THE PROFITS ON ALL TRADES AT THE AVERAGE P ROFIT RATE OF TOP FIVE MOST PROFITABLE TRADES AT 1.40 %, AN ACTION THAT IS NOT JUSTIFIABLE AT ALL. THE AO HAS IN EFFECT SUBSTITUTED A HIGHER SALE PRICE THAN THAT AS PER BOOKS OF THE APPELLANT FOR DETERMINING A HIGHER PROFIT WITHOUT JUSTIFYING THE BASIS FOR TAKING SUCH HIGHER RATE. THE ASSUMED NOTIONAL PROFIT CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. IN THESE FACTS, IT IS HELD THAT THERE IS NO BASIS FOR REJECTION OF BOOK RESULTS AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT U/S ITA NO.2493/M/2017 M/S. PLACID TRADELINKS PVT. LTD. 6 145.THE ASSUMED NOTIONAL PROFIT CANNOT BE SUSTAINED . ACCORDINGLY THE ADDITION OF RS.9,94,22,286/- IS DELETED AND GROUND OF APPEAL NO 2 IS ALLOWED. 6. THE LD. D.R. VEHEMENTLY SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE NOT PROPERLY MAINTAINED BY T HE ASSESSEE WHICH HAS BEEN PROVED BY THE AO BY BY POINTING OUT SEVERAL DEFECTS AND DISCREPANCIES THEREIN. THE LD. D.R. SU BMITTED THAT THERE WERE NO DETAILS BEFORE THE AO OF FORWARD CONT ACTS ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE QUA VARIOUS TRANSACTIONS OF SA LE AND PURCHASE IN HIGH SEAS. THE LD. D.R. FURTHER SUBMIT TED THAT DETAILS OF ONE TO ONE PURCHASE VIS--VIS SALE WAS A LSO NOT AVAILABLE BEFORE THE AO AND THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS W ERE REJECTED FOR VARIOUS DISCREPANCIES AS POINTED OUT BY THE AO IN PARA 4.3(G). THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT CREDITORS, DEB TORS, LOAN ADVANCES, PURCHASE SAND SALES REMAINED UNVERIFIED , UNVOUCHED AND UNCONFIRMED AND THEREFORE THE AO HAS NO OPTION BUT TO REJECT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND ESTIMATING THE INC OME OF THE ASSESSEE BY APPLYING GP TO THE TOTAL TURNOVER AND T HEREFORE THE ORDER OF AO SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. A.R. WHILE RELYING HE AVILY ON THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) H AS ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AFTER CALLING FOR REMAND RE PORT FROM THE AO WHEREIN THE AO WAS ALLOWED OPPORTUNITY BY LD. CI T(A) TO VERIFY THE VARIOUS EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BY THE ASSES SEE AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES UNDER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME T AX RULES SUCH AS LEDGER ACCOUNTS IN RESPECT OF RUCHI SOYA IN DUSTRIES LTD., HIGHTECH REALTIES PVT. LTD., SOYUMM MARKETING PVT. LTD., HARIOM OIL INDUSTRIES, RAGHUNATH AGENCIES PVT. LTD. SWASTICK INTERNATIONAL, TEEJ IMPEX PVT. LTD. & CARGO CLEARIN G AGENCIES. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED LEDGER ACCOUNTS OF SUND RY DEBTOR, ITA NO.2493/M/2017 M/S. PLACID TRADELINKS PVT. LTD. 7 CUSTOMER CREDIT BALANCES, LOAN ADVANCES AND DEBTORS WHICH WERE NOT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO IN THE ORIGINAL PR OCEEDINGS AS THE SAME WERE NOT CALLED FOR BY THE AO. IN THE REM AND REPORT SUBMITTED THE AO STATED THAT ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITIES HAD BEEN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND ONLY ON ACCOUNT OF NON SUBMISSION OF DETAILS AND DISCREPANC IES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, THE RESORT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT WAS MADE. IN THE REPORT ALSO THE AO RE ITERATED WHAT HAS BEEN STATED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DESPITE TH E FACT THAT ASSESSEE FILED ALL THE BILLS, VOUCHERS, CONTRACTS/A GREEMENTS FOR HIGH SEAS TRANSACTIONS WITH VARIOUS PARTIES AND ALS O THE PARTIES SUCH AS SUNDRY CREDITORS, DEBTORS FILED/RESPONDED T O THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. THE LD. A. R. SUBMITTED THAT EVEN THE ASSESSEE FILED A DETAILED REPLY TO TH E REMAND REPORT AND FINALLY THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING ALL TH ESE ASPECTS ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. FINALLY, THE L D. A.R. SUBMITTED BEFORE THE BENCH THAT IN VIEW OF THE SAID DETAILED FINDINGS AND VERIFICATION OF RECORDS/EVIDENCES , T HE APPEAL WAS ALLOWED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER PASSING A VERY REAS ONED AND SPEAKING ORDER WHICH NEEDS TO BE UPHELD BY THE TRIB UNAL. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD INCLUDING THE IM PUGNED ORDER AND DECISION CITED BY THE LD. A.R. THE UNDIS PUTED FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS COULD NOT FILE CERTAIN DETAILS/CONFIRMATION AS STATED BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE B EFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND LD. CIT(A) CALLED FOR REMAND REPORT ON T HE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE REMAND REP ORT SUBMITTED BY THE AO ,HE REITERATED HIS STAND IN THE REMAND R EPORT AND ITA NO.2493/M/2017 M/S. PLACID TRADELINKS PVT. LTD. 8 ALSO STATED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH THE VARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES ALLOWED DURING THE COURSE OF REMAND P ROCEEDINGS AND THEREFORE JUSTIFIED THE ADDITION MADE IN THE AS SESSMENT ORDER. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE FILED A REPLY TO T HE REMAND REPORT GIVING POINT BY POINT REBUTTAL TO WHAT HAS BEEN STA TED BY THE AO AND IT IS ONLY AFTER CONSIDERING THE REMAND REPORT, REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE FACTS ON RECORD, LD. CIT(A) ALLOWE D THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. FROM THE RECORDS BEFORE US, WE OB SERVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED VARIOUS DETAILS INCLUDING COPIES OF BILLS, VOUCHERS, CONFIRMATIONS FROM THE PARTIES WHICH THE AO HAS NOT APPRECIATED PROPERLY. EVEN THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO T RIED TO OBTAIN THE COMPLIANCES TO THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AO UNDE R SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT AND IN THE PROCESS CAME TO KNOW THAT SEVERAL PARTIES HAVE ALREADY REPLIED TO THE NOTICES ISSUED UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT NAMELY FRAME IMPEX PVT. LTD., NOV A TRADING PVT. LTD., STRIDE MULTITRADE PVT. LTD., RUCHI INFRA STRUCTURE LTD., RUCHI OFF-SHORE MARKETING PVT. LTD., IMPERIAL MARKT RADE (I) PVT. LTD., VISHAL VICTORY OILTECH PVT. LTD. WE FURTHER F IND THAT THE AO HAS REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS DUE TO DIFFERENC ES AND NON NON CONFIRMATION OF TRANSACTIONS AND ESTIMATED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY APPLYING A GP RATE OF 1.4% ON THE T OTAL TURNOVER. HOWEVER, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS THAT T HE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE COMPARED THE RATES OF FORWARD CONTRAC TS WITH THE PREVAILING RATES IN THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE BEFORE D ETERMINING THE QUANTUM OF RELIEF. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED A VERY DETAILED AND REAS ONED ORDER AFTER CONSIDERING THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO AND A SSESSEES SUBMISSIONS AND FACTS ON RECORD. THEREFORE , WE DO NOT FIND ANY ITA NO.2493/M/2017 M/S. PLACID TRADELINKS PVT. LTD. 9 REASON TO DEVIATE FROM THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT( A) AND ACCORDINGLY ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IS AFFIRMED. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 05.02.2019. SD/- SD/- ( RAM LAL NEGI) (RAJESH KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 05.02.2019. * KISHORE, SR. P.S. COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT, CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE CIT (A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE DR CONCERNED BENCH //TRUE COPY// [ BY ORDER DY/ASS TT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI.