M/s Rama Shanker Dinesh Kumar, Agra V. A.C.I.T., Central Circle, Agra

ITA 388/AGR/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0572 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 9 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 16-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 04-03-2013
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 06-08-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Business income; Document seized; Documents seized; Set aside
• Section: 153A; 234B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.L. GEHLOT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 388/AGRA/2012 ASSTT. YEAR : 2005-06 M/S. RAMA SHANKER DINESH KUMAR, VS. A.C.I.T., CEN TRAL CIRCLE, A-55, MANDI SAMITI, AGRA. AGRA. (PAN : AABFR 2335 L) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAJENDRA SHARMA, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI WASEEM ARSHAD, SR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 04.03.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER : 08.03.2013 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M.: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-I, AGRA DATED 05.03.2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005- 06. 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT IN THIS CASE A SE ARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION WAS CARRIED OUT ON 05.01.2006 AND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH CERTAIN DOCUMENTS AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE FOUND AND SEIZED. ON THE BASI S OF THESE SEIZED DOCUMENTS, PROCEEDINGS U/S. 153A HAS BEEN INITIATED IN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER EXAMINING THESE SEIZED DOCUMENTS, THE AO FOUND THAT MANY TRANSACTIONS RELATING TO SALES AND PURCHASES OF RICE ETC. WERE NOT RECORD ED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ITA NO. 388/AGRA/2012 2 CERTAIN AMOUNT OF EXCESS STOCK WERE ALSO FOUND, WHI CH COULD NOT BE EXPLAINED BY THE SUCCESSOR FIRM OF THE ASSESSEE, M/S. RAMA SHANK ER MANOJ KUMAR. IN FACT, THE AY 2005-06 IS THE LAST ASSESSMENT YEAR OF THE ASSES SEE FIRM AND SUBSEQUENTLY, IT WAS CONVERTED INTO OTHER FIRM NAMED M/S. RAMA SHANK ER MANOJ KUMAR AS A NEW PARTNERSHIP FIRM. CONSIDERING THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDE NCE DISCUSSED BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, HE ESTIMATED THE TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM AT RS.5 CRORE AS AGAINST THE RS.4,71,57,192/- DISCLOSED IN THE RE TURN OF INCOME. THE AO HAS ALSO REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM U/S. 145(3) AND COMPUTED THE GROSS PROFIT RATE AFTER TAKING AVERAGE FOR LAST THR EE YEARS WHICH WAS COMPUTED TO 4.27%. AFTER APPLYING THIS RATE ON THE TOTAL TURNOV ER OF 5.00 CRORE, THE GROSS PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM WAS WORKED OUT AT RS.21,35,000 /- AS AGAINST RS.14,17,408/- DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE FIRM AND THEREFORE, A DIFF ERENCE OF RS.7,17,592/- (RS.21,35,000 RS.14,17,408) IS ADDED TO THE INCOM E OF THE ASSESSEE AS EXTRA PROFIT DERIVED FROM THE PURCHASE AND SALES OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THUS, THE TOTAL ASSESSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM HAS BEEN DETERMINED AT RS.7,83,212/- AS AGAINST THE RETURNED INCOME OF RS.65,620/-. 2.1 THE ADDITION WAS CHALLENGED BEFORE THE LD. CIT( A) AND WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE IS INCORPORATED IN THE APPELLATE OR DER IN WHICH IT WAS BRIEFLY EXPLAINED THAT THE AO SHOULD NOT HAVE REJECTED THE BOOKS RESULTS AND SHOULD HAVE ITA NO. 388/AGRA/2012 3 ACCEPTED THE RETURNED INCOME BECAUSE THERE IS NO BA SIS FOR ENHANCING THE SALES AND NO SUPPRESSION OF PURCHASES AND SALES HAVE BEEN FOU ND AND SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ACCEPTED IN THE EARLIER YE ARS. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION IS UNJUSTIFIED. THE LD. CIT(A), HOWEVER, FOUND THAT TH ERE ARE MANY SEIZED DOCUMENTS DISCUSSED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHICH ARE NOT RE FLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. EVEN THE STOCK FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH CO ULD NOT BE EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THERE ARE SUFFICIENT REASONS T O SHOW THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BEING NOT CORRECT AS WELL AS NOT COMPLETE, THEREFOR E, THE SAME HAVE BEEN RIGHTLY REJECTED U/S. 145(3) OF THE IT ACT. THE LD. CIT(A) FOUND THAT ESTIMATE OF TURNOVER AT RS.5.00 CRORES AS AGAINST SALES DECLARED BY THE ASS ESSEE AT RS.4.71 CRORES IS REASONABLE CONSIDERING THE UNACCOUNTED STOCK AND SA LES OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE LD. CIT(A), HOWEVER, FOUND THAT THE G. P. RATE OF 3.5% WOULD BE REASONABLE AND ACCORDINGLY AGAINST THE ESTIMATED TU RNOVER OF RS.5.00 CRORES AND ESTIMATED PROFIT AT RS.17,50,000/- AS AGAINST GROSS PROFIT DECLARED BY ASSESSEE AT RS.14,17,408/-, CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.3,32,5 92/- AS AGAINST ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AT RS.7,17,592/-. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS PARTLY ALLOWED. 3. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL CHALLENGED TH E ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT U/S. 145(3), ENHANCEM ENT OF SALES AND GROSS PROFIT ITA NO. 388/AGRA/2012 4 AND INTEREST U/S. 234B OF THE IT ACT. THE LD. COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND S UBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS DISCUSSED THE ORDER IN THE CASE OF M/S. RAMA SHANKA R MANOJ KUMAR, THE SUCCESSOR FIRM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-0 7 AND IN THAT CASE, THE MATTER HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE ITAT, AGRA BENCH IN ITA NO. 180/AGRA/2011 DATED 30.03.2012 IN WHICH PROFIT RATE OF 3.50 HAS BEEN AP PLIED AGAINST THE DECLARED SALES BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. COPY OF THE ORDER IS PLACED ON RECORD. HE HAS ALSO SUBMITTE D THAT THE ADDITION SHOULD BE CONFINED TO THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE AND PAST ASSESSM ENTS AND RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DEL TA ENGINEERING CO. PVT. LTD. 186 ITR 383. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR RELIED U PON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPO N THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, AGRA BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S. RAM SHANKER MANOJ KUMAR, THE SUCCESSOR FIRM OF THE ASSESSEE IN WHICH PARA 5 & 6 ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDE R : 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED IN THIS CASE IN WHICH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND AND SEIZED. AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE, THE AO CALLED FOR SEVERAL DETAILS FROM THE ASSESSEE, AS NOTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, BUT NO SATISFACTO RY EXPLANATION HAS BEEN GIVEN. IT IS ALSO NOTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R THAT SINCE THE SEARCH WAS TEMPORARILY CONCLUDED, THEREFORE, SEAL W AS PUT AT THE PREMISES, WHICH WAS BROKEN OPEN AND DOCUMENTS AND B OOKS OF A/C, ITA NO. 388/AGRA/2012 5 STOCKS WERE REMOVED. FIR TO THAT EFFECT WAS ALSO LO DGED. IT WAS ALSO FOUND THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, THERE WAS D IFFERENCE IN THE STOCK FOUND IN THE BOOKS AND THE PHYSICAL STOCK AS PER INVENTORY PREPARED BY THE OFFICERS OF THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT. SPECIFIC QUANTITY OF EXCESS STOCK WAS NOTED IN THE INVENTORY AND THE ASSESSEE DID NOT OBJECT TO THE PREPARATION OF INVENTORY OF THE STOCK . SINCE EXCESS STOCK WAS FOUND IN THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFOR E, BURDEN WOULD BE ON THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE EXCESS STOCK WITH RE FERENCE TO THE ENTRIES MADE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IT WAS MERELY EXPLAINED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT COUNTING OF THE STOCK WAS DONE MANUALLY AND IT IS QUITE HUMANLY POSSIBLE THAT THERE ARE SOME MISTAKES IN THAT EXERCISE. EXCEPT THAT EXPLANATION NO SPECIFIC EXPLANATION HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR EXPLAINING THE EXCESS STOCK FOUND AT T HE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE EXCESS STOCK AND HAS NOT RAISED ANY OBJECTION TO THE PREPARATION OF INVE NTORY OF THE STOCK AND THE ASSESSEE FURTHER FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE EXCE SS STOCK BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WITH REFERENCE TO THE ENTRIES MAD E IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE AUTHORITIES BE LOW WERE JUSTIFIED IN MAKING AND CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.86,100/- O N ACCOUNT OF EXCESS STOCK. FURTHER, NOTHING IS PRODUCED BEFORE U S DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING TO EXPLAIN THIS ISSUE. THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL ON OUR RECORD, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ON THIS ISSUE. THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS STOCK OF RS.86,1 00/- IS, ACCORDINGLY CONFIRMED AND THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS, ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSED. 6. NOW, WE TAKE UP THE ESTIMATE OF G.P. FOR THE PUR POSE OF MAKING ADDITION. THE LD. CIT(A) ALLOWED PART RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO THE ESTIMATE OF SALES. THE LD. CIT(A) SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF AO WITH REGARD TO ESTIMATE OF THE TURNOVER, ON WHIC H THERE IS NO APPEAL BY THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT. THEREFORE, IT REM AINS CONFIRMED THAT THE SALES DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS.3,62 ,98,317/- ARE ACCEPTED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THE AO REJECTED THE BOO KS OF ACCOUNT BECAUSE THE QUERY OF THE AO HAS NOT BEEN EXPLAINED AND THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE FOUND NOT TO BE MAINTAINED CO RRECTLY SO AS TO DEDUCE THE CORRECT PROFIT THERE FROM. THE AO SPECIF ICALLY NOTED THAT THE SEAL PUT ON THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE WAS BR OKEN OPEN AND THE DOCUMENTS, BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND STOCK WERE REMOVED. THIS ITSELF IS SUFFICIENT TO CONFIRM THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITI ES BELOW REGARDING ITA NO. 388/AGRA/2012 6 REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE ENTRIES CONTAINED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE REMOVAL OF DOCUMENTS AND PAPERS BY BREAKING OPEN THE SEAL OF T HE SEARCH PARTY, WOULD CLEARLY PROVE THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF TH E ASSESSEE WERE NOT RELIABLE AND DUE TO THIS REASON ONLY, THE ASSESSEE BROKE OPEN THE SEAL OF THE SEARCH PARTY. IT IS ALSO NOT A DENYING FACT THAT THE EXCESS STOCK WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF OPERATION, NOTED ABO VE, ON WHICH WE HAVE CONFIRMED THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS ST OCK. THEREFORE, THE BOOK RESULT OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN RIGHTLY REJECT ED IN THE MATTER FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTIMATING THE BOOK RESULTS. HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ACTION ELECTRICALS, 258 ITR 188, HEL D THAT WHEN THE AMOUNTS DISCOVERED DURING THE SEARCH AND SURRENDER MADE, REJECTION OF ACCOUNTS PROPER AND ESTIMATED ASSESSMENT ON PREV IOUS YEARS BASIS WAS HELD TO BE JUSTIFIED. HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH CO URT IN THE CASE OF BIMAL KUMAR ANANT KUMAR, 288 ITR 278 HELD THAT CASH CREDITS SURRENDERED AND THERE WAS ABSENCE OF STOCK REGISTER , THEREFORE, REJECTION OF ACCOUNTS JUSTIFIED. CONSIDERING THE FA CTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES NOTED ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WERE RIGHTLY REJECTED IN TH E MATTER FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTIMATING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FO R THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IT IS ALSO NOT A DENYING FACT THAT T HE ASSESSEE CAME INTO EXISTENCE W.E.F. 01.04.2005 AND HAS SHOWN G.P. RATE OF 2.98%. THUS, IT WAS THE FIRST YEAR OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESS EE. THE AO APPLIED AVERAGE G.P. RATE OF 4.27% OF THE EARLIER FIRM WHIC H WAS SUCCEEDED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NOT ED THAT THE PARENT COMPANY M/S. RAMA SHANKER DINESH KUMAR HAS SHOWN G. P. OF 3.36% IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. NO OTHER FIGURE IS GIVEN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS STOCK IS MAINTAINED S EPARATELY AND IT WAS THE FIRST YEAR OF THE BUSINESS OF ASSESSEE, THE REFORE, IN THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND THAT THE PARENT COMP ANY HAS SHOWN G.P. RATE OF 3.36% IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05, IT WOULD BE REASONABLE AND PROPER IF G.P. RATE OF 3.50% BE APPL IED AGAINST THE DECLARED SALES BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF M AKING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ESTIMATED PROFIT. WE, ACCORDINGLY, MO DIFY THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND DIRECT THE AO TO APPLY G. P. RATE OF 3.5% ON THE SALES DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE AND COMPUTE THE BUSINESS INCOME ACCORDINGLY. IN THE RESULT, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL I S PARTLY ALLOWED. THERE IS NO CHALLENGE TO CHARGING OF INTEREST, WHIC H IS MANDATORY AND ITA NO. 388/AGRA/2012 7 COMPENSATORY IN NATURE. THEREFORE, CHARGING OF INTE REST IS JUSTIFIED AND CONFIRMED. 4.1 IN THIS CASE, THE ADDITION WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) OF RS.86,100/- ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS STOCK AND THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO FOU ND THAT NO SPECIFIC DISCREPANCIES HAVE BEEN FOUND IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOU NT. THE LD. CIT(A), THEREFORE, FOUND THAT THERE IS NO BASIS TO ESTIMATE THE SALES. THE LD. CIT(A) SET ASIDE THE FINDINGS OF THE AO IN ESTIMATING THE SALES, HOWEVER , DIRECTED THE AO TO APPLY HIGHER G.P. RATE AS HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE AO AND RESTRICTED THE PART ADDITION. THE TRIBUNAL CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS .86,100/- ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS STOCK AND JUSTIFIED THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOU NT AND DIRECTED TO APPLY G.P. RATE OF 3.50% AGAINST THE DECLARED SALES BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ESTIMATED PROFIT. THUS, IN T HIS CASE, WHEN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS CONSIDERED AND THE CIT(A) HAS ALREADY ACCEPTED THE SALES OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BECAUSE THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION TO REJECT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, ISSUE OF ESTIMATED SALES WAS NOT BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AS NO DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED ON THAT ISSUE. HOWEVER, IN THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL, THE AO HAS SPECIFICAL LY NOTED THAT THE DETAILS CALLED FOR BY HIM HAVE NOT BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE HIM. EVEN COMPLETE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, BILLS, VOUCHERS HAVE NOT BEEN FURNISHED. THERE ARE MANY SEIZED MATERIAL FOUND FROM THE PREMISES, WHICH CLEARLY PROVE THAT MANY TR ANSACTIONS RELATING TO SALES AND ITA NO. 388/AGRA/2012 8 PURCHASE ETC. WERE NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACC OUNT OR THE SAME DID NOT TALLY WITH THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. EXCESS STOCK WAS ALSO FOUND WHICH WERE NOT RECONCILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THERE WAS SPE CIFIC SEIZED MATERIAL AVAILABLE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT THE BOOK RESULTS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT JUSTIFIED. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO SATISFY THE AO REGARDING THE MAINTENANCE OF PROPER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND FURTHER THE SEAL PUT ON THE PR EMISES OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE SEARCH PARTY WAS BROKEN OPEN AND THE ASSESSEE REMOV ED SEVERAL ARTICLES THERE FROM FOR WHICH THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT LODGED FIR AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THIS WAS THE SUFFICIENT REASON TO REJECT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND TO REJECT THE SALES DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS FACT IS ALTOG ETHER DIFFERENT FROM THE CASE OF M/S. RAM SHANKER MANOJ KUMAR (SUPRA) RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE AO HAS NOT MADE ANY SEPARATE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED EXCESS STOCK IN WHICH SEPARATE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE IN THE CASE OF M/S. RAMA SHANKER MANOJ KUMAR. THEREFORE, ESTIMATE OF SALES AND THE TURNOVER IN THE PRESENT CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS JUSTIFIED TO M EET THE OBJECTIONS OF THE AO AND THE SEIZED MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEAR CH. THE LD. CIT(A) APPLIED PROFIT RATE OF 3.5% WHICH IS ALSO APPLIED IN THE CASE OF R AM SHANKER MANOJ KUMAR (SUPRA) BY THE TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE, SAME G.P. SHALL HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING ESTIMATED ADDITION AGAINST THE AS SESSEE. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THERE ARE NO EXACT DETAILS AVAILABLE FOR QUANTIFYING THE ESTIMATED SALES, ITA NO. 388/AGRA/2012 9 IT WOULD BE REASONABLE AND PROPER TO ESTIMATE THE S ALES/TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.4.85 CRORES AS AGAINST RS.5.00 CRORES ESTIMATED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND RS.4.71 CRORES DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. AGAINST TH E ESTIMATED TURNOVER OF 4.85 CRORES WHEN G.P. RATE OF 3.50% IS APPLIED AS APPLIE D BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF RAMA SHANKER MANOJ KUMAR (S UPRA), THE PROFIT WOULD COME TO RS.16,97,500/- AS AGAINST G.P. OF RS.14,17, 409/- DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE EXCESS AMOUNT OF PROFIT WOULD BE RS.2,80,092/- (ROUNDED TO 2,80,000/-). THE AO IS DIRECTED TO MAKE ADDITION OF RS.2,80,000/- IN ALL. IN THE RESULT, PART OF THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. THE CH ARGING OF INTEREST IS MANDATORY AND COMPULSORY IN NATURE, THEREFORE, CHARGING OF IN TEREST IS JUSTIFIED AND CONFIRMED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PAR TLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (A.L. GEHLOT) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *AKS/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A), CONCERNED BY ORDER 4. CIT, CONCERNED 5. DR, ITAT, AGRA 6. GUARD FILE SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY TRUE COPY