SANJAY KUMAR GUPTA, Jaipur V. ACIT, Jaipur

ITA 456/JPR/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5326 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 08-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G R PAREEKH JCIT DR DHK
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure
• Section: 69C; 133A; 69

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR JH VH-VKJ-EHUK] YS[KK LNL; ,OA JH YFYR DQEKJ] U;KF; D LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE:SHRI T.R. MEENA,AM & SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 456/JP/2015 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 SHRI SANJAY KUMAR GUPTA PROP. M/S. RAJASTHALI TEXTILE & GEM PALACE NEAR RAMGARH MODE,AMER ROAD, JAIPUR CUKE VS. THE ACIT CIRCLE- 5 JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO .: ADHPG 4386 R VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 457/JP/2015 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 M/S. RAJASTHAN HANDICRAFT TEXTILE PRINTING FACTORY, NEAR RAMGARH MODE,AMER ROAD, JAIPUR CUKE VS. THE ITO WARD- 5 (1) JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO .: AAEFR 2373 P VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P.C. PARWAL , CA JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY: SHRI G.R. PAREEKH, JCIT -DR LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : /04/2016 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13/05/2016 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER LALIET KUMAR, JM BOTH THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE DIFFEREN T RESPECTIVE ASSESSEE'S AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A )-2, JAIPUR DATED ITA NO. 456//JP/2015 SHRI SANJAY KUMAR GUPTA VS. ACIT, CIRCL E- 5, JAIPUR . 2 16-03-2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 WHEREIN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF BOTH THE ASSESSEE'S ARE ALMOST SAME WHIC H ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 1. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE APPLICAT ION OF SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT. 2. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, T HE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ESTIMATING THE G.P AT 4 1% INSTEAD OF 34.98% DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE 3. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, T HE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ESTIMATING THE COMMISSION EXPENSES @ 20%. 2.1 DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRESSED THE GROUND NO. 1 IN BOTH THE ABOVE APPEALS OF THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEE'S. THEREFORE, THE GROUND NO. 1 OF THE ABOV E ASSESSEES ARE DISMISSED BEING NOT PRESSED. 3.1 SINCE THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF BOTH THE ASSESSE E'S ARE SAME, THEREFORE, WE TAKE UP FIRST GROUND NO. 2 (SUPRA) OF SHRI SANJAY KUMAR GUPTA FOR ADJUDICATING THEM FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENI ENCE. 3.2 BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE C ONTINUED TO DERIVE INCOME FROM TRADING OF ARTIFICIAL JEWELLERY AND TEX TILES UNDER HIS PROPRIETARY CONCERN NAMELY M/S. RAJASTHALI TEXILE & GEM PALACE. THIS IS THE FIRST YEAR OF BUSINESS. THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLAR ED GROSS PROFIT OF RS. ITA NO. 456//JP/2015 SHRI SANJAY KUMAR GUPTA VS. ACIT, CIRCL E- 5, JAIPUR . 3 30,94,904/- YIELDING GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 34.96% ON SALES OF RS. 88,52,701/-. A SURVEY U/S 133A OF THE ACT WAS CONDU CTED AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE A ON 25-08-2008. DURING SURVEY, THE EXCESS STOCK OF RS. 16,25,869/- AND EXCESS CASH OF RS. 1.00 EACH WERE F OUND AND THE SAME WAS SURRENDERED FOR TAXATION. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED THE GROSS PROFIT RATE AT 34.96% ON SALES W HICH ARE FAR LESS THAN THE GROSS PROFITS ADMITTED BY THE PARTNER AND THE S ALESMEN OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY U/S 133A OF THE AC T. THE AO OBSERVED ON EXAMINATION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT THAT NO QUAN TITATIVE DETAILS OR STOCK REGISTER IN RESPECT OF THE GOODS TRADED BY T HE ASSESSEE FIRM WERE MAINTAINED. THE AO OBSERVED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE IN NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS DID NOT SHOW TRUE AND COR RECT PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS. THE AO THUS REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT U/S 145(3) OF THE ACT AND MADE TRADING ADDITION OF RS. 8,88,811/- BY APPL YING THE GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 45% ON TURNOVER OF RS. 88,52,701/- (GROSS PROFIT WORKED OUT BY THE AO AT RS. 39,83,715 MINUS GROSS PROFIT RATE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 30,94,904 = RS. 8,88,811. 3.3 BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO, THE ASS ESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO CONFIRMED THE REJE CTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT U/S 145(3) OF THE ACT AND ALSO SIMULTANEOUS LY REDUCED THE TRADING ITA NO. 456//JP/2015 SHRI SANJAY KUMAR GUPTA VS. ACIT, CIRCL E- 5, JAIPUR . 4 ADDITION TO RS. 5,34,703/- BY APPLYING THE GROSS P ROFIT RATE OF 41% AND THE LD. CIT(A)S CONCLUSIVE FINDING IS REPRODUCED A S UNDER:- FURTHER, IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT GROSS PROFI T RATE OF 35% HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ITAT,JAIPUR IN THE CASE OF THE FIRMS RAJASTHAN HANDICRAFT TEXTILE PRIN TING, IN A.Y. 2002-03.HERE IT IS TO BE STATED THAT DURING TH E COURSE OF SURVEY PROCEEDINGS, IN THIS PREVIOUS YEAR CERTAIN FURTHER DEFECTS IN THE NATURE OF EXCESS STOCK AND EXCESS CA SH HAVE BEEN DETECTED AS A RESULT OF WHICH THE GROSS PROFIT RATE OF A.Y. 2002-03 OR THE PRECEDING YEARS, IN THE CASE OF THE FIRM, CANNOT BE A BASIS FOR DETERMINING THE GROSS PROFIT RATE IN THIS YEAR. IN THE CASE OF THE FIRM, ALSO A GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 41% HAS BEEN SUSTAINED. LOOKING TO THE ABOVE FACTS, THE GROSS PROFIT RATE OF THE APPELLANT IS ESTIMATED AT 41%, I N VIEW OF THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. THE TRADING AD DITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS RESTRICTED ACCOR DINGLY. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO STATED THAT WHILE COMPUTING THE BOOK STOCK, THE GROSS PROFIT RATE HAS BEEN TAKEN AS 35% WHICH HAS RESULTED IN A LOWER BOOK STOCK AND A HIGHER QUANTUM OF EXCESS STOCK. THIS MAY BE VERIFIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE BOOK STOCK SHOULD BE COMPUTED BY ADOPTING T HE GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 41% AND THE EXCESS STOCK COMPU TED ACCORDINGLY. GROUND NO. 2 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 3.4 NOW THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE PRAYED FOR REDRESSAL OF HIS GRIEVANCE THROUGH THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION AS UNDER:- 1. AT THE OUTSET, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE G.P. RAT E OF 45% APPLIED BY THE AO BUT CONSIDERED AT 41% BY THE CIT(A) IS BA SED ON THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE RECORDED IN COURSE OF SURVEY. THIS STA TEMENT IS ON APPROXIMATION. FURTHER, THE STATEMENT RECORDED IN SURVEY HAS NO EV IDENTIARY VALUE AS HELD BY SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. S. KHADER SON 352 ITR 480 WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT SECTION 133A DOES NOT EMPOWER ANY INCOME TAX AUTHORITY TO EXAMINE ANY PERSON ON OATH AND THUS, ANY SUCH STATEMENT HAS NO EVIDENTIARY VALUE. ITA NO. 456//JP/2015 SHRI SANJAY KUMAR GUPTA VS. ACIT, CIRCL E- 5, JAIPUR . 5 THEREFORE, ANY ADMISSION MADE DURING SUCH STATEMENT CANNOT BY ITSELF, BE MADE THE BASIS FOR ADDITION. THEREFORE, THE G.P. RA TE OF 41% APPLIED BY CIT(A) SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE RECORDED IN SURVEY IS BAD IN LAW. 2. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN SURVEY, STOCK WA S PHYSICALLY VERIFIED AND VALUED AT RS.24,70,760/-. THE STOCK SO PHYSICALLY VERIFIED WAS COMPARED WITH THE BOOK STOCK DETERMINED AT RS.8,44, 891/- BY APPLYING G.P. RATE OF 35%. ON THIS BASIS, EXCESS STOCK WAS WORKED OUT AT RS.16,25,869/- WHICH WAS SURRENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE WORKING OF THIS SURRENDER IS AS UNDER:- PARTICULARS AMOUNT PARTICULARS AMOUNT OPENING STOCK - SALES 21,79,450/- PURCHASES 22,61,533/- CLOSING STOCK 8,44,891/- GROSS PROFIT @ 35% 7,62,808/- 30,24,341/- 30,24,341/- ACTUAL STOCK FOUND AS PER PHYSICAL VERIFICATION RS . 24,70,760/- STOCK AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS @ 35% RS. 8,44,891/ - EXCESS STOCK RS. 16,25,869/- THUS, WHEN EXCESS STOCK WAS DETERMINED BY APPLICATI ON OF G.P. RATE OF 35%, THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR APPLICATION OF G.P. R ATE OF 41%. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, THE APPLICATION OF G.P. RATE OF 4 1% CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED AND THE AO BE DIRECTED TO A CCEPT THE G.P. RATE OF 35% DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3.5 THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORIT IES BELOW. 3.6 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE AO HAS APPLIED THE GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 45% AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS REDUCED THE SAME AT 41% CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS OBSERVED TH AT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN RIGHTLY REJECTED BY THE LO WER AUTHORITIES SINCE STOCK REGISTER OF THE ITEMS TRADED AND QUANTITATIVE DETAILS THEREOF ARE NOT PROPERLY MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS WE FEEL T HAT IN VIEW OF THE ITA NO. 456//JP/2015 SHRI SANJAY KUMAR GUPTA VS. ACIT, CIRCL E- 5, JAIPUR . 6 FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, BUSINESS REQUI REMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE'S AND TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE FOR BOT H THE PARTIES, THE GROSS PROFIT RATE IS REDUCED TO 38%. HENCE, THE GROUND NO . 2 OF ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 4.1 AS REGARDS THE GROUND NO. 3 OF THE ASSESSEE FOR CON FIRMING THE ESTIMATION OF COMMISSION EXPENSES @ 20% BY THE LD. CIT(A), BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE AO OBSERVED IN THE P&L A/C THAT THE ASSESSEE DEBITED COMMISSION EXPENSES OF RS.8,34,528/- WHICH IS 9.43% OF THE SALES. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE COMMISSION IS PAID TO THE DRIVER S AND GUIDES WHO BRING THE TOURIST TO THE SHOWROOM AND SALES ARE MADE TO T HEM BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID COMMISSION @ 20% ON THE SALE THROUGH OUT THE YEAR BUT COMMISSION @ 10% HAS BEEN RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THUS THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAD RECORDED COMMISSION OF RS. 8,34,528/- IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUN T BUT SIMULTANEOUSLY OBSERVED THAT AN EQUIVALENT AMOUNT I.E. RS. 8,34,52 8/- HAD BEEN PAID WITHOUT RECORDING IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, THE AO TREATED SUCH UNRECORDED EXPENDITURE AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 69 OF THE ACT. ITA NO. 456//JP/2015 SHRI SANJAY KUMAR GUPTA VS. ACIT, CIRCL E- 5, JAIPUR . 7 4.2 BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTE R BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO UPHELD THE COMMISSION MADE BY THE AO THR OUGH HIS FINDINGS AT PARA 2.5 OF HIS ORDER AS UNDER:- 2.5 DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY PROCEEDINGS, THE A HAS SATED THAT COMMISSION OF 20% ON SALES IS PAID W HICH IS DISTRIBUTED EQUALLY BETWEEN THE DRIVERS AND GUIDES. FURTHERMORE, IN THE CASE OF THE ABOVE FIRM, ENGAGED IN THE SAME BUSINESS, WHERE THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNER, STA TEMENT OF ONE SHRI GANESH PRASAD PATERIA WHO HAS BEEN WORKING AS A GUIDE AND CANVASSING AGENT OF THIS FIRM FOR THE PAS T THREE YEARS, WAS RECORDED IN WHICH HE STATED THAT COMMISS ION @ 20% IS PAID TO DRIVERS AND GUIDES. ALSO SHRI GOPAL SHARMA, SUPERVISOR IN THE FIRM ALSO STATED THAT COMMISSION IS PAID@ 20% OF THE SALES. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE STATEMENTS R ECORDED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS HELD THAT COMMISSION @ 20 % OF THE SALES HAS BEEN PAID AS AGAINST WHICH COMMISSION OF ONLY 10% HAS BEEN RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE REFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT 10% OF THE EXPENDIT URE HAS BEEN INCURRED OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ADDE D THIS SUM U/S 69C OF THE ACT. THE APPELLANT HAS STATED TH AT COMMISSION @ 20% OF THE SALES WAS PAID ONLY TILL OC T. 2007 AND THEREAFTER COMMISSION HAS BEEN PAID @ 10% OF TH E SALES. THEREFORE, IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT NO ADDITI ON CAN BE MADE. THE ABOVE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE BECAUSE IF IT WERE SO, THE PARTNER SHRI SANJAY GUPTA, THE SUPERVISOR, SHRI GOPAL SHARMA AND SHRI G ANESH ITA NO. 456//JP/2015 SHRI SANJAY KUMAR GUPTA VS. ACIT, CIRCL E- 5, JAIPUR . 8 PRASAD PATERIA, GUIDE AND CANVASSING AGENT WOULD HA VE STATED SO. BUT THEY ALL STATED THAT COMMISSION @ 20 % OF THE SALES IS PAID. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CONDU CT ANY BUSINESS PRIOR TO THIS YEAR, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF PAYING A LOWER RATE OF COMMISSION IN THIS YEAR AS C OMPARED TO EARLIER YEAR. IN VIEW OF THE EXPRESS STATEMENTS GIVEN BY THE ABOVE PERSONS AND THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, ADDITION OF 10% OF THE COMMISSION EXPENDITURE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER U/S 69C IS UPHELD. GROUND NO. 3 IS DISMISSED. 4.3 NOW THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE WHEREIN THE LD. AR O F THE ASSESSEE THROUGH HIS FOLLOWING WRITTEN SUBMISSION PRAYED FOR REDRESSAL OF HIS GRIEVANCE. 1. AS STATED IN GROUND NO. 1 ABOVE, STATEMENT RECOR DED IN SURVEY HAS NO EVIDENTIARY VALUE AND THEREFORE SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF SUCH STATEMENT, THE FINDING OF LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT ASSESSEE PAID COMMISSION @20 % AS AGAINST 10% RECORDED IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS HAS NO LEGAL BASIS. 2. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WITH T HE LOWER AUTHORITIES TO RECORD A FINDING THAT ASSESSEE HAS PAID COMMISSION @20%. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE FOUND IN SURVEY THAT COMMISSION WAS PAID A T A RATE MORE THAN THAT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, IT CANNOT BE PRE SUMED, ONLY ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT, THAT ASSESSEE HAS PAID PART OF THE COMMI SSION OUT OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. 3. IT MAY BE FURTHER NOTED THAT IT IS BEYOND THE NO RMAL PRESUMPTION THAT ASSESSEE WOULD SUPPRESS THE COMMISSION EXPENSES AND RECORD THE SAME AT A LOWER SIDE AND THEREBY TO PAY TAX ON A HIGHER INCOME. THE REFORE, ALSO IT IS UNREASONABLE TO PRESUME THAT ASSESSEE INCURRED EXPENSES ON COMMI SSION OUT OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. 4. OTHERWISE ALSO, EVEN IF THE STATEMENT IS TO BE R ELIED UPON, IT CAN BE ONLY WITH REFERENCE TO THE TURNOVER UPTO THE DATE OF SUR VEY AND NOT THEREAFTER. ITA NO. 456//JP/2015 SHRI SANJAY KUMAR GUPTA VS. ACIT, CIRCL E- 5, JAIPUR . 9 IN VIEW OF ABOVE, THE FINDING OF THE LOWER AUTHORIT IES THAT ASSESSEE PAID COMMISSION @20% IS UNJUSTIFIED AND THE ADDITION PRO POSED ON THIS ACCOUNT BE DELETED. 4.4 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT EMERGES FROM THE RECORD THA T THE ASSESSEE FIRM HAS TO PAY THE COMMISSION TO GUIDE/ DRIVERS AND OTHER A GENTS WHO BRING THE CUSTOMERS FOR INCREASE THEIR SALES. THIS IS THE NOR MAL METHODOLOGY OF THE BUSINESSMAN TO GENERATE THE INCOME FOR WHICH THE BU SINESSMAN HAS TO PAY THE COMMISSION TO THE GUIDE/ DRIVERS AND AGENTS WHO BRINGS THE CUSTOMERS FOR THE BUSINESSMAN. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY DEBIT ED EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION @ 20% ON SALES UPTO OCT. 200 7. THEREAFTER HE WAS SHOWING COMMISSION @ 10% TO THE DRIVERS/ GUIDE. HOWEVER, THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 133A OF THE ACT WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY LD. CIT(A). IN OUR V IEW, THE STATEMENTS U/S 133A OF THE ACT DO NOT CARRY ANY EVIDENTIARY VA LUE IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V S. KHADER SON (SUPRA). DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, NO INCRIMINAT ING DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND AND IMPOUNDED WHICH SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE H AD PAID COMMISSION @ 10% OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. ACCO RDINGLY, WE DELETE THE ADDITION CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THUS GROU ND NO. 3 OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ITA NO. 456//JP/2015 SHRI SANJAY KUMAR GUPTA VS. ACIT, CIRCL E- 5, JAIPUR . 10 5.1 NOW WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE NAMEL Y RAJASTHAN HANDICRAFTS TEXTILE PRINTING FACTORY (ITA NO. 457/J P/2015) WHEREIN SIMILAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL WERE FILED AS FILED IN TH E CASE OF SANJAY KUMAR GUPTA, PROP.RAJASTHALI TEXTILE & GEM PALACE (ITA N O. 456/JP/2015). SINCE THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE PRESENT CAS E ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF SANJAY KUMAR GUPTA, PROP.RAJAS THALI TEXTILE & GEM PALACE (ITA NO. 456/JP/2015), THEREFORE, IT IS NOT IMPERATIVE TO DESCRIBE THE ENTIRE CASE AND THE DECISION TAKEN BY US IN THE CASE OF SANJAY KUMAR GUPTA, PROP. RAJASTHALI TEXTILE & GEM PALACE IN ITA NO. 456/JP/2015 SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS IN THIS CASE ALSO BEIN G IN SIMILAR TRADE AND SIMILAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 5.2 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. SINCE WE HAVE UPHELD THE GROSS PROFIT RATE AT 38% IN THE CASE OF SHRI SANJAY KUMAR GUPTA, THEREFORE, THE SAME GROSS PROFIT RATE SHALL APPLY IN THE CASE OF RAJASTHAN HANDICRAFTS TE XTILE PRINTING FACTORY. HENCE, GROUND NO. 2 OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOW ED. 5.3 APROPOS GROUND NO. 3 OF COMMISSION EXPENSES, SI NCE THE ISSUE IN QUESTION HAS ALREADY BEEN DEALT WITH IN DETAIL IN T HE CASE OF SHRI SANJAY KUMAR GUPTA (SUPRA), WHEREIN WE HAVE DELETED THE AD DITION CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ACCORDINGLY, WE DELETE THE ADDITION IN THE CASE OF THIS ITA NO. 456//JP/2015 SHRI SANJAY KUMAR GUPTA VS. ACIT, CIRCL E- 5, JAIPUR . 11 ASSESSEE I.E. OF M/S. RAJASTHAN HANDICRAFT TEXTILE PRINTING FACTORY. THUS GROUND NO. 3 OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 6.0 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF BOTH THE ASSESSE E'S ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13/05/2016 . SD/- SD/- (T.R. MEENA) (LALIET KUMAR) ( VH-VKJ-EHUK ) ( YFYR DQEKJ ) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 13 /05/ 2016 *MISHRA VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SHRI SANJAY KUMAR GUPTA, JAIPUR 2. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- RAJASTHAN HANDICRAFT TEXTILE, JAIPUR 3. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- THE ACIT, CIRCLE- 5, JAIPUR 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY ) @ CIT(A) 5. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT, 6. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 7. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 456/JP/2015) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR