The DCIT, Central Circle-3, Surat V. Shri Mehul T. Desai, Surat

ITA 350/AHD/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1928 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 09-02-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SMITHA V NAIR
• Assessee Lawyers: RASESH SHAH
• Keywords: Depreciation; Income from undisclosed sources; Loose papers
• Section: 145; 132; 133A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH SURAT BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.350/AHD/2017 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2014-15 DCIT, CENT.CIR.3 SURAT. VS. SHRI MEHUL T. DESAI (PROP. OF YASH CLINICAL LABORATORY) U-11 TO 13, TRADE CENTRE OPP: SBI, NANPURA, SURAT. PAN : ABWPD 2707 L ( APPLICANT ) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SMT.SMITHA V. NAIR, SR.DR ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RASESH SHAH, CA / DATE OF HEARING : 13/11/2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 13/12/2018 / O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER : REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A)- 4, SURAT DATED 7.11.2016 PASSED FOR THE ASSTT.YEAR 2014-15. 2. SOLE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE LD.CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING ADDITION OF RS.2,07,41,751/- WHICH WAS ADDED BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED INCOME EARNED BY THE A SSESSEE BY WAY OF SUPPRESSION OF PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT SEARCH ACTION UN DER SECTION 132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE CA SE OF MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL GROUP OF SURAT ON 4.3.2014. M/S.YASH CLINICAL LABORATORY IS PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN OF DR.MEHUL T. DESAI. IT WAS ITA NO.350/AHD/2017 2 COVERED UNDER SURVEY ACTION UNDER SECTION 133A OF T HE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 23.10.20 14 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.66,97,770/-. ACCORDING TO THE A O, DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY CERTAIN LOOSE PAPERS REFLECTING U NACCOUNTED RECEIPTS WERE FOUND AND IMPOUNDED AS ANNEXURE A/1 T O ANNEXURE- A/6. THESE LOOSE PAPERS PERTAINED TO THE PERIOD OF 1.9.2013 TO 3.3.2014 I.E. FOR SIX MONTHS. SUM TOTAL OF THESE L OOSE PAPERS WAS WORKED OUT BY THE AO AT RS.1,62,77,798/-. ACCORDIN G TO THE AO, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN AS TO HOW THESE UNAC COUNTED RECEIPTS HAVE BEEN RECORDED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. ON THE BASIS OF THESE EVIDENCES, PERTAINING FOR PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS, HE INTERPOLATED RECEIPTS FOR THE WHOLE YEAR AND WOR KED OUT SUCH UNACCOUNTED RECEIPTS AT RS.3,25,55,596/-. THE AO T HEREAFTER OBSERVED THAT TRIAL BALANCE SHEET FROM REGULAR BOOK S OF ACCOUNTS, WAS DRAWN OUT AND RECEIPTS FOR NINE MONTHS HAVE BEE N SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE REGULAR BOOKS AT RS.51,10,384/- . FIGURE OF COMPLETED YEAR-WISE WAS WORKED OUT AT RS.65,13,845/ -. THE AO HAS GIVEN CREDIT OF THIS, PLUS RS.50 LAKHS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE SEARCH. THE BALANCE OF RS.2,57,41,751/- HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNEXPL AINED RECEIPTS. 4. DISSATISFIED WITH THIS ADDITION, THE ASSESSEE CA RRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.C|IT(A). THE LD.CIT (A) UPHELD THE CONCLUSION OF THE AO FOR WORKING OUT UNEXPLAINED RE CEIPTS AT RS.2,12,91,706/-. THE LD.CIT(A) HOWEVER OBSERVED T HAT ONCE UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ESTIMAT ED FOR THE COMPLETED YEAR ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE FOUND PERTA INING TO SIX MONTHS PERIOD, THEN IT WOULD SHOW THAT BOOKS OF ACC OUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT REFLECTING TRUE PICTURES AND THESE BOOKS HAVE TO BE REJECTED. ONCE THE BOOKS AR E REJECTED, ITA NO.350/AHD/2017 3 THEN PROFIT EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR HAS TO BE ESTIMATED. THE LD.CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT PRO FIT ON THESE UNACCOUNTED RECEIPTS BEING ESTIMATED TAKING INTO CO NSIDERATION AVERAGE PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE LAST FIVE YE ARS, THEN EXTRA INCOME DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS.50 LAKHS WOU LD TAKE CARE OF THE PROFIT EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF THES E UNACCOUNTED RECEIPTS. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD.CIT(A) DELETED ADDIT ION OF RS.2,12,91,706/- MADE BY THE AO. DISSATISFIED WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), REVENUE IS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNA L. 5. THE LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ONLY PROFIT EMBEDDED IN THE UNACCOUNTED RECEIPTS DESERVES TO BE ADDED. ONCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE OF EXP ENDITURE ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN INCURRED FOR EARNING THESE REC EIPTS, THEN GROSS RECEIPTS DESERVES TO BE ADDED TO THE TOTAL IN COME OF THE ASSESSEE. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A). 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE TH ROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. SECTION 145 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT IS THE RELEVANT PROVISION FOR THIS ISSUE, THEREFORE, IT IS PERT INENT TO TAKE NOTE OF THIS SECTION. IT READS AS UNDER : 145. (1) INCOME CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD 'PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION' OR 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES' SHALL , SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (2), BE COMPUTED IN ACCOR DANCE WITH EITHER CASH OR MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING REGULARLY EMPLOYED BY THE ASSESSEE. (2) THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT MAY NOTIFY IN THE OFFICI AL GAZETTE FROM TIME TO TIME [ACCOUNTING STANDARDS] TO BE FOLLOWED BY ANY CLASS OF ASSESSEES OR IN RESPECT OF ANY CLASS OF INCOME. ITA NO.350/AHD/2017 4 (3) WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT SATISFIED AB OUT THE CORRECTNESS OR COMPLETENESS OF THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE, OR WH ERE THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING PROVIDED IN SUB-SECTION (1) [OR ACCOUNTI NG STANDARDS AS NOTIFIED UNDER SUB-SECTION (2), HAVE NOT BEEN REGULARLY FOLL OWED BY THE ASSESSEE], THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY MAKE AN ASSESSMENT IN THE MAN NER PROVIDED IN SECTION 144.] 7. A BARE READING OF SECTION 145 WOULD REVEAL THAT IT PROVIDE THE MECHANISM HOW TO COMPUTE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO SUB-SECTION 1, THE INCOME CHARGEA BLE UNDER THE HEAD PROFIT AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION OR INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCE SHALL BE COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTANCY EMPLOYED BY AN ASSESSEE REGULARLY, SUBJECT TO SUB-SECTION 2 OF SECTION 145 OF T HE ACT. SUB-SECTION 2 PROVIDES THAT THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT MAY NOTIFY IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE FROM TIME TO TIME, THE ACCOUNTING STANDARD REQUIRED TO BE FOLLOWED BY ANY CLASS OF ASSE SSEE IN RESPECT OF ANY CLASS OF INCOME. THUS, IT INDICATES THAT INCOME HAS TO BE COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTANCY FOLLOWED BY AN ASSESSEE I.E. CASH OR MERCANTI LE, SUCH METHOD HAS TO BE FOLLOWED KEEPING IN VIEW THE ACCOUNTING STANDARD NOTIFIED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT FRO M TIME TO TIME. SUB CLAUSE 3 PROVIDES A SITUATION, THAT IS, IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS UNABLE TO DEDUCE THE TRUE INCOME. O N THE BASIS OF METHOD OF ACCOUNTANCY FOLLOWED BY AN ASSESSEE THAN HE CAN REJECT THE BOOK RESULT AND THE ASSESSEES INCOME ACCORDING TO HIS ESTIMATION OR ACCORDING TO HIS BEST JUDGMENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THAT CASE IS REQUIRED TO POINT OUT THE DEFECTS IN THE ACCOUNTS OF ASSESSEE AND REQUIRED TO SEE K ITA NO.350/AHD/2017 5 EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE QUA THOSE DEFECTS. IF THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE DEFECTS THAN ON THE BASI S OF THE BOOK RESULT, INCOME CANNOT BE DETERMINED AND ASSESSING OFFICER WOULD COMPUTE THE INCOME ACCORDING TO HIS ESTIM ATION KEEPING IN VIEW THE GUIDING FACTOR FOR ESTIMATING SUCH INCOME. 8. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE, LET US EXAMINE THE FA CTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. A PERUSAL OF THE RECORD WOULD INDICA TE THAT EVIDENCE EXHIBITING UNRECORDED RECEIPTS WAS FOUND FOR THE PE RIOD STARTING FROM 1.9.2013 UPTO 3.3.2014. IT MEANS BOOKS OF ACC OUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT DEPICTING TRUE PICTURE. THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF THESE BOOKS COULD NOT BE DETERMINED. BOOK RESULTS DESERVE TO BE REJECTED. BO OKS HAVE BEEN REJECTED AND NO ONE HAS CHALLENGED REJECTION O F THAT BOOKS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THIS FINDING HAS BEEN ACCEPTE D BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS BY THE REVENUE. SHORT QUESTION IS THAT, AFTER REJECTION OF THE BOOKS, WHETHER GROSS RECEIPT ARE T O BE TREATED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OR ONLY PROFIT EMBEDDED IN T HOSE RECEIPTS ? ONCE THE LD.AO HAS WORKED OUT UNACCOUNTED RECEIPTS FOR THE WHOLE YEAR ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE FOUND FOR THE PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS, THEN SUCH WORKING IS BASED ON AN ESTIMATE AND ASSUM PTION, AND IN THE SAME MANNER CORRESPONDING EXPENDITURE OUGHT TO BE ASSUMED AND ESTIMATED, BECAUSE NO ENTITY COULD EARN GROSS R ECEIPTS. THIS FOLD OF DISPUTE HAS BEEN IGNORED BY THE AO ON THE G ROUND THAT EVIDENCE WAS NOT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE EXHIBITI NG INCURRENCE OF EXPENDITURE. TO OUR MIND, THIS WAS NOT CORRECT APPROACH AT THE END OF THE AO. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS APPRECIATED THE C ONTROVERSY IN RIGHT PERSPECTIVE AND IN PLACING RELIANCE UPON THE JUDGMENT OF ITA NO.350/AHD/2017 6 HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. IT IS WORTH TO TAKE NOTE OF FINDING RECORDED BY THE LD.CIT(A). IT READS AS UND ER: 7. HAVING GONE THROUGH THE NATURE OF SEIZED DOCUME NTS, THE FINAL ACCOUNTS, THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS, THE SUBMISSI ONS AND THE DECIDED LAW; THE FOLLOWING PERTINENT OBSERVATIONS A ND DECISIONS ARE CULLED OUT: A) THE COMPARISON OF THE TRANSACTIONS RECORDED ON THE REGISTERS ETC. SEIZED WITH THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND BILLS, CL EARLY SHOWS THAT THE ACTUAL RECEIPTS ARE SUBSTANTIALLY MORE THAN THA T RECORDED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS. - . B) THE TOTAL RECEIPTS WORKED BY THE AO ARE ALSO D ISPUTED, AND THE APPELLANT DID NOT AGREE WITH THE FIGURES WORKED OUT. I HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE SEIZED REGISTER AND THE REGULAR BOOKS. THE FOLLOWING FACTS AND OBSERVATIONS ARE VERY RELEV ANT TO THE ISSUE: 1) THE RECEIPTS IN THE REGULAR BOOKS ARE TAKEN INTO DIFFERENT HEADS; (I) CONSULTING FEES (WHERE FEES RECEIVED WITH RESPECT TO COLLECTION CENTER LIKE ME & MUMMY ETC. ARE RECORDED ; THE TOTAL OF THIS AMOUNT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR A. Y. 2014-15 IS RS. 38,84,048/-. THE OTHER RECEIPTS OF THE NATURE C ORRESPONDING TO FEE INCOME REGISTER RS. 40,40,998/-.OUT OF THESE , PAYMENTS RECEIVED FROM JEEVANSHAILI IN FORM OF TEST FEES, RS . 21,79,420/- (LEDGER POLIO 158) AND IN FORM OF CONSULTANCY FEE, RS. 60,000/- (LF 157); CONSULTANCY FEES RECEIVED FROM DOCTORS CL INICAL LAB (LF 154) RS. 5,76,750/- AND TESTING FEES RECEIVED FROM MIRAJ HEALTH CARE (LF 163) RS. 4,17,000/- DO NOT FORM PART OF TH E KACHBA REGISTER OF RECEIPTS IN CASH SEIZED DURING THE SEAR CH. THEREFORE, OUT OF RS. 79,25,046/- (RS. 38,84,048/- PLUS RS. 40 ,40,998/-) ONLY RS. 46,91,876/-(RS. 79,25,046/- MINUS RS. 21,7 9,420/- MINUS 60,000/- MINUS RS. 576750/- MINUS 4,17,000/-) COULD BE SET OFF AGAINST THE RECEIPTS RECORDED IN THE KACHHA REGISTERS SEIZED. (II) FEES REGISTER INCLUDED IN REGULAR BOOKS A RE ALSO REFLECTED THOUGH PARTY IN THE KACHHA REGISTERS SEIZED AND HAV E TO BE GIVEN A SET OFF IN REGULAR BOOKS FEES REGISTER RECEIPTS R S. 65,72,014/- ARE RECORDED. (III) I FULLY AGREE WITH THE TOTAL RECEIPTS OF THE APPELLANT WORKED OUT BY THE AO. SHE HAS CORRECTLY EXTRAPOLATED THE R ECEIPTS FOUND ITA NO.350/AHD/2017 7 RECORDED FOR A PERIOD OF 6 MONTHS TO 1 YEAR. THE AP PELLANT HAD NOT REFLECTED A HUGE AMOUNT OF RECEIPTS IN HIS BOOK S OF ACCOUNTS AND THEREFORE THE ACCOUNTS ARE NOT CORRECT AND COMP LETE. THEREFORE, THESE ARE LIABLE TO REJECTED 145(3) AND THE ASSESSMENT IS TO BE MADE TO THE BEST OF JUDGMENT' APPLYING PRO VISION OF SECTION 144. THE EXTRAPOLATION TO COMPLETE YEAR WHE RE RECORD OF LAST SIX MONTHS HAS BEEN FOUND AND SEIZED IS FULLY JUSTIFIED. IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT SUDDENLY THE WHOLE SYSTEM WAS D EVISED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE YEAR. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE DECIS ION OF HON'BLE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RAJNIK & C O. 251 !TR 0561 AND HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF K. Y. PILLASH & SONS 63 ITR 411. HOWEVER, THE TOTAL UNACCOUNTED REC EIPTS WOULD HAVE TO BE WORKED OUT SUBTRACTING THE CORRESPONDING RECORDED RECEIPTS AS DISCUSSED IN POINTS (I) AND (II) ABOVE. THEREFORE, THE TOTAL, UNRECORDED RECEIPTS FOR THE YEAR IS WORKED OUT AT RS. 2,12,91,706/- (RS. 3,25,55,596/- MINUS RS. 46,9 1,8767- MINUS RS. 65,72,014/-). C) THE ONLY ISSUE WHICH REMAINS IS THE QUANTUM OF PROFITS TO BE WORKED OUT ON THE BASIS OF ACTUAL AND SUPPRESSED RE CEIPTS OF THE APPELLANT'S PROFESSION. D) THE COURTS HAVE TIME AND AGAIN HELD THAT WHAT IS TO BE ADDED IS THE PROFIT EMBEDDED IN THE SUPPRESSED RECEIPTS, BY WAY OF THE SUPPRESSION AND NOT THE ENTIRE RECEIPTS. I AGREE WI TH THE APPELLANT ON THIS COUNT. THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS OF SUPERIOR COURTS ARE RELIED UPON AND TAKEN GUIDANCE FROM: 1) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. PRESIDENT INDUSTRIES (2002) 124 TAXMAN 654 (GUJARAT HIGH COURT) ; 2) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. SAMIR SYNTH ETICS MILLS (2001) 326 ITR 410 (GUJARAT HIGH COURT) 3) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. GURUBACHHAN SINGH (2008) 171 TAXMAN 406 (GUJARAT HIGH COURT) 4) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. BALCHAND AJIT KUMAR 135 TAXMAN 180 (MADHYA PRADESH) 5) KISHOR MOHNALAL TELWALA VS. AC/T (1999)7 FOXMANN.COM 86 (AHD) THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF SAIRAM MULTI SPECIALITY HOSPITAL VS. ACIT, (2014) 40 CCH 0132 HYD. TRIB. WHICH RELATES TO SIMILAR, BUSINESS ALSO SUPPORTS THIS VIEW. ITA NO.350/AHD/2017 8 THE FINAL ACCOUNTS OF PAST YEARS AND THE RATIO OF R ECEIPTS TO THE VARIABLE EXPENSES (EXCLUDING THE FIXED OR FULLY DIS CLOSED EXPENSES LIKE INTEREST, DEPRECIATION, ELECTRICITY BILLS ETC. ) WOULD GIVE A VERY GOOD GUIDANCE TO THE ACTUAL PROFITS ON AVERAGE ADDI TIONAL RECEIPTS OF THE BUSINESS AND THEREFORE; THE SUPPRESSION OF P ROFITS WHICH HAVE BEEN DONE BY THE APPELLANT IN THE RELEVANT PRE VIOUS YEAR. I HAVE WORKED OUT THE NET PROFIT ON TOTAL RECEIPTS, FOR A.Y. 2009- 10 TO 2013-14, EXCLUDING THE FOLLOWING FIXED OR FUL LY DISCLOSED EXPENSES LIKE INTEREST, DEPRECIATION, ELECTRICITY B ILLS ETC.: - 1) RENT 2) INSURANCE CHARGES 3) ELECTRICITY EXPENSE 4) MUNICIPAL AND PROFESSIONAL TAX 5) FINANCIAL CHARGES & VEHICLE LOAN AND HOUSE LOAN INTEREST EXPENSES 6) DEPRECIATION AS PER INCOME TAX ACT 7) TELEPHONE BILL (LANDLINE) THEREFORE, THE NET PROFITS FOR DIFFERENT YEARS CONS IDERING ONLY THE VARIABLE EXPENSES IS WORKED OUT AS UNDER: DIRECT INCOME A.Y2013-14 A.Y 2012-13 A.Y 2011-12 A.Y 2010-11 A.Y 2009-10 TOTAL RECEIPTS 14,117,869 10,338355 9,472,351 7,341,923 6,370,621 NET PROFIT AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT 11.42 10.26 12.32 14.94 16.52 NET PROFIT RATIO AFTER REMOVING FIXED EXPENSES 14.49 13.83 16.18 19.42 21.69 THE AVERAGE NET PROFIT EXCLUDING THE FIXED EXPENSES WORKS OUT AT 17.12% AND MAXIMUM NET PROFIT WAS 21.69% 5 YEARS BA CK AND HAS SHOWN A DECREASING TREND. THE APPELLANT HAS DISCLOSED ADDITIONAL 50 AC RUPEES IN ITS RETURN FILED. THE NET PROFIT OF 50 LAC ON UNRECORDED-RECEI PTS FOR THE YEAR WORKED OUT AT RS. 2,12,91,706/-; GIVES A NET PROFIT RATE OF 23.48%. THEREFORE, THE PROFITS DECLARED ARE HELD RE ASONABLE LOOKING TO THE PROFIT IN THE BUSINESS EVEN AFTER RE DUCING THE FIXED EXPENSE. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, EVEN OTHER WISE, IF UNRECORDED RECEIPTS AS WORKED OUT BY THE AO AT RS. 2,57,41,751 /- WERE CONSIDERED THE NET PROFIT RATE ON UNDECLARE D RECEIPTS COMES TO 19.42% WHICH IS MUCH ABOVE THE AVERAGE OF LAST 5 YEARS AND IS REASONABLE CONSIDERING THE DECREASING TREND. I HAVE ALREADY HELD THAT THE ACTUAL PROFITS AND NOT THE EN TIRE SUPPRESSED RECEIPTS ARE TO BE ADDED. THE PROFITS DECLARED ON S UPPRESSED ITA NO.350/AHD/2017 9 RECEIPTS (EXTRAPOLATED FOR THE WHOLE YEAR) AT RS. 5 0 LAC ARE HELD REASONABLE AND THEREFORE, ANY FURTHER ADDITION IS U NCALLED FOR. THE ADDITION MADE IS THEREFORE, DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 9. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE ABOVE WELL REASONED ORDE R OF THE LD.CIT(A), WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A). IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DEVOID OF ANY MERIT. IT IS DISMISSED. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 13 TH DECEMBER, 2018. SD/- SD/- (AMARJIT SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER