ITO, Kota V. RITESH KUMAR SOMANI, Kota

ITA 415/JPR/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5158 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 28-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA
• Assessee Lawyers: PRAKUL KHURANA; ADITYA VIJAY S LQUOKB
• Section: 69C; 40A(3); 143(3)

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S, JAIPUR JH DQY HKKJR] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS [KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YAD AV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 415/JP/2014 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), KOTA. CUKE VS. SHRI R ITESH KUMAR SOMANI, PROP. M/S. SWASTIKA STONE CRUSHER, BUNDI ROAD, KOTA. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. ASRPS 1606 B VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ C.O. NO. 20/JP/2014 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 415/JP/2014 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10. SHRI R ITESH KUMAR SOMANI, PROP. M/S. SWASTIKA STONE CRUSHER, BUNDI ROAD, KOTA. CUKE VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), KOTA. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. ASRPS 1606 B VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI R.A. VERMA (ADDL.CIT) FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI PRAKUL KHURANA & SHRI ADITYA VIJAY (ADVOCATES) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 22.07.2016. ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26/08/2016. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM. THE APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTION BY T HE ASSESSEE ARE FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A), KOTA DATED 26.03. 2014 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. SINCE BOTH THE APPEAL AND THE CROSS OBJECTION ARISE OUT OF THE SAME ORDER, THEY ARE TAKEN UP TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DIS POSED OFF TOGETHER FOR THE SAKE 2 ITA NO. 415/JP/2014 SHRI RITESH KUMAR SOMANI. OF CONVENIENCE. FIRST, WE TAKE UP REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 415/JP/2014. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN :- (I) DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 8,61,454/- MADE BY AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED DIFFERENCES IN OPENING BALANCES OF D EBTORS AND CREDITORS ON PROTECTIVE BASIS. (II) DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 41,71,872/- AS MENTION ED BELOW MADE BY THE AO IN VIEW OF VARIOUS DISCREPANCIES IN IMPOUNDED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT VIS--VIS REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING THAT AO HAD REJECTED BOOKS OF A CCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND, THEREFORE, ADDITION IS REQUIRED T O BE TAKEN NET PROFIT AT RS. 7,22,510/- COMPUTED BY SPECIAL AUDITO R : S.NO. BRIEF PARTICULARS OF ADDITION AMOUN T 1. UNRECORDED EXPENDITURES RS. 4,46,401/ - 2. EXPENSES CLAIMED EXCESSIVE/ BOGUS RS. 1,76,419/ - 3. DIFFERENCE IN SALES OF GRIT RS. 9,81,394/ - 4. DIFFERENCE IN PURCHASE OF DABORA RS. 1,590/ - 5. CRUSHING EXPENSES RELEVANT TO PERIOD AFTR 01.07.2008 RS. 83,820/ - 6. PRIOR OF PERIOD EXPENSES RS. 29,542/ - 7. DIFFERENCES IN ENTRIES OF BANKS RS. 81,750/ - 8. TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES RS. 1,50,000/ - 9. ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF COMPARISON NOTES ON THE ENTRIES IN RECASTED BOOKS RS. 22,20,956/ - (III) DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 6,07,949/- MADE BY AO ON ACCOUNT OF VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) SINCE THE AO NEITHER REJECTED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ESTIM ATED INCOME BY APPLYING NET PROFIT RATE ON SALES. (IV) DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 29,450/- MADE BY AO ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN DATES OF POSTING OF VOUCHERS. (V) DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,25,200/- MADE BY AO ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN CRUSHER MACHINE PURCHASE PRICE. 3 ITA NO. 415/JP/2014 SHRI RITESH KUMAR SOMANI. (VI) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LIBERTY TO RAISE ADDITIONAL GR OUND AND TO MODIFY/AMEND THE GROUND OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HE ARING. 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS ARE THAT A SURVEY ACTIO N WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 133 A OF THE IT ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) ON 1 ST OCTOBER, 2008. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY SOME INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND AT THE BUSI NESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH WERE IMPOUNDED. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE FI LED RETURN OF INCOME ON 29.10.2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,93,545/- . THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTIO N 143(3) OF THE IT ACT WAS FRAMED VIDE ORDER DATED 14.08.2012. WHILE FRAMING T HE ASSESSMENT, THE AO SUBJECTED THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR SPECIAL AUDIT UNDER SECTION 142(2A) OF THE IT ACT. THE AO ON THE BASIS OF RE-CASTED ACCOU NTS MADE ADDITION OF RS. 8,61,454/- ON PROTECTIVE BASIS AS THE OPENING BALAN CE RELATED TO SUNDRY CREDITORS PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2008-09. THE AO ALSO MADE ADDIT ION OF RS. 4,46,401/- BEING THE UNRECORDED EXPENDITURE BY INVOKING PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 69C OF THE ACT. THE AO ALSO MADE ADDITION OF RS. 1,76,419/- IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXCESSIVE/BOGUS EXPENSES. THE AO ALSO MADE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE OF SALES BETWEEN RECASTED BOOKS AND REGULAR BOOKS OF RS. 9,81,394/-, DISALLOWANCE OF DABORA PURCHASE OF RS. 1590/-, CRUSHING EXPENSES OF RS. 83 ,820/-, CASH PAYMENT EXCEEDING RS. 20,000/- OF RS. 6,07,949/-, DIFFERENCE IN DATES IN POSTING OF CASH VOUCHER IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF RS. 29,450/-, PRIOR PERIOD EXPE NSES OF RS. 29,542/-, DIFFERENCE IN CRUSHER MACHINE PURCHASE PRICE OF RS. 2,25,200/- , DIFFERENCE IN ENTRIES OF BANKS OF RS. 81,750/-, TRANSPORTATION CHARGES OF RS. 1,50,00 0/- AND ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF 4 ITA NO. 415/JP/2014 SHRI RITESH KUMAR SOMANI. COMPARISON NOTES ON THE ENTRIES IN RECASTED BOOKS O F RS. 22,20,956/-. THUS THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS. 58,96,170/- AND COMPUTED INCOM E AT RS. 60,89,721/- AGAINST THE INCOME DECLARED AT RS. 1,93,545/-. THE ASSESSE E AGGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER, PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT (A), WHO AFTER C ONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS, PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL. WHILE DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL, LD. CIT (A) DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 8,61,454/- MADE BY THE AO ON PROTECTIVE BASI S. IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCES OF RS. 4,46,401/- ON ACCOUNT OF NP RATE, RS. 1,76,419/ - ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESSIVE/BOGUS EXPENSES, RS. 9,81,394/- ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE I N SALES, RS. 1,590/- ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN PURCHASE OF DABORA, RS. 83,820/- ON A CCOUNT OF CRUSHING EXPENSES, RS. 29,542/- ON ACCOUNT OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES, RS. 8 1,750/- ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN ENTRIES OF BANKS, RS. 1,50,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF T RANSPORTATION CHARGES AND RS. 22,20,956/- ON ACCOUNT OTHER TRANSACTIONS, THE LD. CIT (A) RESTRICTED THE TOTAL ADDITION TO RS. 7,22,510/-. IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF RS. 6,07,949/- AS MADE BY INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3), THE LD. CIT (A) DELETED THE ADDITION BY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONA L HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GK CONTRACTORS (2009) 19 DTR 305 (RAJ). IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF RS. 29,450/-, AO WAS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION. THE ADDITION OF RS. 22,20,956/- WAS DELETED AS COVERED BY THE ESTIMATION OF INCOME. THE APPEAL WAS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 3. NOW BOTH REVENUE AND ASSESSEE HAVE FILED APPEAL AND CROSS OBJECTION. 4. ALL THE GROUNDS IN THE PRESENT APPEAL PERTAIN TO ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON THE BASIS OF RE-CASTED ACCOUNTS BY THE SPECIAL AUDI TOR. THESE GROUNDS WERE HEARD AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF TOGETHER. 5 ITA NO. 415/JP/2014 SHRI RITESH KUMAR SOMANI. 4.1. THE LD. D/R SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF AO AND REQU ESTED THAT THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) BE SET ASIDE AND RESTORED THE ORDER OF AO. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL BY SPECIAL AUDITOR WHICH IS NOT CONTROVERTED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4.2. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. A/R OF THE ASSESSEE S UPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) TO THE EXTENT DELETING THE ADDITIONS. HE S UBMITTED THAT THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITION ON PROTECTIVE BASI S IGNORING THE FACT THAT ACCOUNTS FOR A.Y. 2008-09 WERE SETTLED BEFORE 31.03.2008 AND THERE WAS NOTHING OUTSTANDING OUT OF RS. 8,61,454/- AS ON 31.03.2008. THE LD. CO UNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE AO WHILE CALCULATING THE ALLEGED DIFFERENCE AMOUNT, WA S NOT JUSTIFIED IN TAKING THE SPECIAL AUDITORS REPORT AS BASIS, AS THE SPECIAL A UDITOR HAS ERRED IN COMPARING THE CLOSING BALANCE OF AY 2008-09 AS APPEARING IN THE R EGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THE OPENING BALANCE AS CALCULATED FROM THE UNRECORDED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR AY 2009-10 WHICH W ERE IMPOUNDED BY THE AO AT THE TIME OF SURVEY. HE SUBMITTED THAT ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR ONLY BECAUSE THE CLOSING BALANCE OF PREVIOUS YEAR I S ONLY THE OPENING BALANCE OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTE D THAT IT IS A SETTLED PRINCIPLE OF LAW THAT ONLY EQUALS CAN BE COMPARED AND NOT UNEQUA LS. THUS, TO ARRIVE AT A CONCLUSION WHETHER THERE IS ANY SUCH DIFFERENCE, TH E CLOSING BALANCE OF AUDITED BOOKS SHALL BE COMPARED WITH OPENING BALANCE OF AUD ITED BOOKS. 4.3. IN RESPECT OF VARIOUS ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO , THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAD INSTRUCTED THE S PECIAL AUDITOR TO RECAST THE BOOKS WHICH IN SUBSTANCE HAS LED TO REJECTION OF TH E BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE 6 ITA NO. 415/JP/2014 SHRI RITESH KUMAR SOMANI. ASSESSEE. HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISIONS IN CA SE OF CHOUDHARY BROTHERS VS. ITO IN ITA NO. 583/JP/2009 (2011) 135 TTJ 55) AND IN CA SE OF M/S. KISHORE CONSTRUCTIONS VS. ITO IN ITA NO. 212/HYD/12. THE A O NEVER RELIED ON THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND TIME AND AGAIN THIS HA S BEEN OBSERVED BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN OTHER WORDS, ALL THE DEDU CTIONS UNDER SECTIONS FROM 30 TO 43D WHICH ARE REFERRED TO UNDER SECTION 29 ARE DEEM ED TO HAVE BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WHILE MAKING SUCH AN ESTIMATE AND NO FURTHE R ADDITION CAN BE MADE. THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT IN THE YEAR CONSIDERATION TH E SPECIAL AUDITOR ESTIMATED THE NET PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 7,22,503/- WHEREA S HONBLE ITAT WHILE DECIDING THE APPEALS FOR A.Y. 2003-04 (IN ITA NO. 619/JP/2011) T O 2008-09 HAS ESTIMATED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY ESTIMATING NP RATE. THERE FORE, HE SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE GROUNDS FROM II(I) TO II(IX) ARE COVERED BY THE EST IMATION OF NET PROFIT. REGARDING INVOCATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3), THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT SINCE BOOKS HAVE BEEN REJECTED AND NET PROFIT IS CALCULAT ED, HENCE NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE UNDER SECTION 40A(3). HE SUBMITTED THAT THE IS SUE IS COVERED BY THE ORDER OF ITAT IN ITA NO. 567/JP/2011 FOR A.Y. 2007-08. LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN D ATES OF POSTING OF VOUCHERS WITHOUT GIVING BENEFIT OF TELESCOPING, THEREFORE, L D. CIT (A) WAS RIGHT IN DELETING THE ADDITION ON THIS ACCOUNT. IN REGARDING TO ADDITION OF RS. 2,25,200/- MADE BY AO ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN CRUSHER MACHINE PURCHASE P RICE, THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS IGNORED THE COPY OF VAT FORM 47, BI LL OF PURCHASE AND RELIED ONLY ON THE PURCHASE ORDER ALONE. IN THIS REGARD, HE SUBMIT TED THAT THE SPECIAL AUDITOR APPOINTED BY THE DEPARTMENT ITSELF HAS ACCEPTED THE VALUE OF MACHINE AS RS. 7 ITA NO. 415/JP/2014 SHRI RITESH KUMAR SOMANI. 4,99,800/-. THE LD. COUNSEL CONCLUDED HIS SUBMISSIO N BY SUBMITTING THAT THE LD. COUNSEL HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITIONS. 4.4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED T HE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELO W. WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT (A) WHILE DEALING THESE ISSUES, HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER : - 4.22. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE AOS FINDINGS AND A SSESSEES SUBMISSION. IT WAS SEEN THAT IN SUBSTANCE, THE AO NEVER RELIED ON THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND TIME AND AGAIN THIS FA CT WSAS MENTIONED BY AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THEREFORE, IT IS HELD THAT AO HAS IN SUBSTANCE REJE CTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND AFTER DOING SO, THE AO SHOULD HAVE COM PUTED THE INCOME BY ESTIMATING THE TURNOVER OF ASSESSEE AND SHOULD H AVE APPLIED NET PROFIT RATE FOR COMPUTING THE INCOME. THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED NET PROFIT OF RS 2,38,545 /- ON A TURNOVER OF RS. 22,06,590/-. THE SPECIAL AUDITOR COMPUTED PROFI T AT RS. 7,22,503.37 ON A TURNOVER OF RS. 31,87,984/-. WHILE DOING SO THE SPECIAL AUDITOR HAS INCLUDED THE UNDISCLOSED TURNOV ER OF RS. 9,81,394/- , THE SPECIAL AUDITOR ALSO TOOK INTO ACCOUNT OTHER ASPECTS INCLUDING CASH FLOW. THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL DEALT WITH EITHER UNEXP LAINED EXPENSES, UNACCOUNTED TURNOVER, SALES ETC. E.G. ADDITION OF R S. 9,81,394/- [GROUND NO. 2(IV)] WAS RELATED TO UNDISCLOSED TURNO VER WHICH WAS INCLUDED BY SPECIAL AUDITOR IN THE P & L ACCOUNT. S IMILARLY, ADDITION OF RS. 22,20,956/- [GROUND NO. 2(XIII)] WAS CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF NONE RECORDING OF VARIOUS ENTRIES. THE SAME MAY BE ATTRI BUTED TO UNDISCLOSED SALES RS. 9,81,394/-, DIFFERENCE IN OPE NING BALANCE RS. 8,61,454/-, NONE RECORDING OF VARIOUS OTHER EXPENSE S ETC. IN MY OPINION, THESE GROUNDS ARE COVERED BY ESTIM ATION OF INCOME. WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE FINDING OF LD. CIT (A) AS THE AO APPOINTED SPECIAL AUDITOR WHO RE-CASTED THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE, IT IS NOT THE CASE WHEN SPECIAL AUDITOR HAS MERELY CARRIED OUT THE SPECIAL AUDIT. A DMITTEDLY, THE SPECIAL AUDITOR, 8 ITA NO. 415/JP/2014 SHRI RITESH KUMAR SOMANI. AFTER RE-CASTING OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS HAS ESTIMATED THE PROFIT. IN ESSENCE THE ESTIMATION OF PROFIT IS ON THE BASIS OF REJECTION O F BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, HENCE THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT (A) ARE JUSTIFIED. WE DO NOT SE E ANY REASON TO DISTURB THESE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT (A). THEREFORE, THE GROUNDS RAI SED IN THIS APPEAL ARE REJECTED. 5. NOW WE TAKE UP THE ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION NO . 20/JP/2014. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN THE CROSS OBJEC TION :- 1. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, LD. CIT (A), KOTA HAS ERRED IN NOT ANNULLING THE ORDER OF THE LD . INCOME TAX OFFICER INVOKING THE PROVISION OF SEC. 142(2A) TO TAKE BENE FIT OF EXPLANATION APPENDED TO SEC. 153 AND THEREBY EXTEND THE TIME AV AILABLE U/S 153 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, LD. CIT (A) KOTA HAS ERRED IN NOT APPLYING THE NET PROFIT RATE TO BE IN CONSONANCE WITH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HONBLE ITAT IN PREVIOUS YEARS. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO ALTER, AMEND AND MODIFY ANY GROUND OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE DATE OF HEARING. 6. THE FIRST GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST CONF IRMING THE APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL AUDITOR. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS AS WERE MADE BEFORE LD. CIT (A). 6.1. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. D/R HAS OPPOSED THE S UBMISSIONS AND SUBMITTED THAT SIMILAR GROUND WAS RAISED IN EARLIER YEAR AND THE T RIBUNAL WAS PLEASED TO DISMISS THE GROUND. 6.2. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED TH E MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT LD. CIT (A) HAS REJECTED THE GROUND BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH IN ITA NO. 592/JP/2011 AND ITA NO. 618/JP/2011 & OTHERS DATED 30.12.2011 THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE. THE LD. COUNSEL HAS NOT POINTED ANY 9 ITA NO. 415/JP/2014 SHRI RITESH KUMAR SOMANI. CHANGE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, HENCE THE GROUND RAISED IS DISMISSED. 7. GROUND NO. 2 IS AGAINST CONFIRMING OF ESTIMATION AS MADE BY THE SPECIAL AUDITOR. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTE D THAT LD. CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE ADOPTED ESTIMATION AS MADE IN THE EARLIER BY THE TR IBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO. 619/JP/2011 & 623/JP/2011. 7.1. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. D/R HAS OPPOSED THE S UBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND SUBMITTED THAT EVERY ASSESSMENT YEAR IS AN INDEPEND ENT YEAR. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO ESTIMATE THE PROF IT OTHER THAN THE ESTIMATE MADE BY THE SPECIAL AUDITOR. 7.2. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED TH E MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE SPECIAL AUDITOR HAS CONSI DERED THE WHOLE MATERIAL AND HAS RIGHTLY COME TO THE CONCLUSION OF ESTIMATING THE PR OFIT. HENCE WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE FINDING OF LD. CIT (A). IT WAS INCUMBENT UPON THE ASSESSEE TO PLACE MATERIAL ON RECORD TO DEDUCE PROFIT OTHER THAN THE PROFIT ESTIMATED BY THE SPECIAL AUDITOR. THUS THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE I S DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND CROSS O BJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26/08/2016 . FOE FLAG ;KNO ( DQY HKKJR ) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) ( KUL BHARAT ) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER JAIPUR DATED:- 26/08/2016. DAS/ 10 ITA NO. 415/JP/2014 SHRI RITESH KUMAR SOMANI. VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT- THE ITO WARD 2(1), KOTA. 2. THE RESPONDENT- SHRI RITESH KUMAR SOMANI, KOTA. 3. THE CIT(A). 4. THE CIT, 5. THE DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 415 & C.O. 20/JP/2014) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR