The ITO, Ward-5(3), Ahmedabad V. M/s. Raj Dyeing Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 551/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 68070 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-12-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 16-12-2013
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 23-02-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Gross profit estimation; Rejection of books of accounts; Non-deduction of tax

Judgement Text

, , , , , , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH D BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI D.K. TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.S.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.551/AHD/2011 ( / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07) ITO WARD-5(3) AHMEDABAD / VS. M/S.RAJ DYEING PVT.LTD. ILABEN PATEL ESTATE NR.VIJAY FARM NAROL-SARKHEJ HIGHWAY AHMEDABAD ! '# ./$% ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AABCR 9971 R ( !& / // / APPELLANT ) .. ( '(!& / RESPONDENT ) AND CO NO.267/AHD/2011 FOR A.Y. 2006-07 (IN ITA NO.551/AHD/2011) M/S.RAJ DYEING PVT.LTD. VS. ITO WARD-5(3) AHMEDABAD AHMEDABAD (CROSS OBJECTOR) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI R.K.DHANESTA, SR.DR ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.N.DIVATIA, AR )* + ,# / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 16/12/2013 -. + ,# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19/12/2013 '/ / O R D E R PER SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE CR OSS-OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD.COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-XI, AHMEDABAD(CIT(A) FOR SHORT) DAT ED 20/12/2010 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2006-07. ITA NO.551/AHD/2011(BY REVEN UE) CO NO.267/AHD/2011 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. M/S.RAJ DYEING PVT.LTD. ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 2 - 2. IN THE REVENUES APPEAL, THE SOLE ISSUE INVOLVED IS THAT THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.58,4 4,127/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF LOW GROSS PROFIT, AFTER REJECTING THE BO OKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. IN THE CROSS-OBJECTION, THE SOLE ISSUE INVOLVED IS THAT THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.20,04,133 /- BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT, 1961 AN D FURTHER THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE GROUND THAT IN CASE THE ADDITION OF RS.58,44,127/- DELETED BY THE LD.CIT(A) IS RESTORED BY THE TRIBUNAL, THEN THE ADDITION OF RS.20,04,133/- ON ACCOUNT OF NON-DEDUCTION OF TDS C ANNOT BE SUSTAINED RELYING ON THE REJECTION WITH THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND, HENCE THE SAME SHOULD BE DELETED. 4. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE AO FOUND TH AT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AS PER TAX AUDIT REPORT THE ASS ESSEE-COMPANY HAD SHOWN GROSS PROFIT @12.04% ON TURNOVER OF RS.6,49,3 4,747/- AS AGAINST THE GROSS PROFIT SHOWN AT 21.09% ON TURNOVER OF RS. 2,38,56,253/- FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE AO AL SO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY HAS CARRIED ON BUSINESS OF PROCESS ING OF CLOTH ON JOB- WORK AS WELL AS IN TRADING OF CLOTHES PROCESSED BY IT. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO GIVE A CHART SHOWING GP OF LAST THREE ASSE SSMENT YEARS WITH THE REASONS FOR FALL IN GP RATIOS IN THE IMMEDIATELY PR ECEDING THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED AS F OLLOWS:- THE FOLLOWING IS THE WORKING OF THE GP RATIO: ITA NO.551/AHD/2011(BY REVEN UE) CO NO.267/AHD/2011 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. M/S.RAJ DYEING PVT.LTD. ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 3 - YEAR RATIO 2006-07 12.04% 2005-06 21.09% 2004-05 20.14% FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE REASON FO R DECLINE IN GP WAS DUE TO STARTING OF OWN TRADING DUE TO SLACKNESS INJOB-WORK MARKET. THE AO DID NOT FIND THE REASON GIVEN BY THE ASSESSE E FOR FALL IN GP AS CONVINCING AND, THEREFORE, ESTIMATED THE GP FOR TH E YEAR UNDER APPEAL BY ADOPTING THE GP RATE OF 21.09% OF THE IMMEDIATELY P RECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE IN HIS REPLY HAS ALSO STATED THAT THE CORRECT GP RATE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS 9.06% AND NOT 12.04% SHOWN IN THE TAX AUDIT REPORT. THER EFORE, THE AO MADE THE ADDITION OF THE DIFFERENCE IN THE GP RATE OF 12 .03% ON THE TOTAL TURNOVER OF RS.6,49,34,747/- AND THEREBY MADE AN AD DITION TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OF RS.58,44,127/-. THE AO ALSO FOU ND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEDUCTED TDS FROM PAYMENT OF FREIGHT CHARGE S TO THE FOLLOWING PARTIES:- (I) T.HIRACHAND - RS.16,22,118 (II) CHANDE ROAD LINES - RS. 1,98,833 (III) MEHUL ROADWAYS, ANMOL ROADWAYS, ETC. - RS. 1,83,182 TOTAL - RS.20,04,133 THEREFORE, BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 4 0A(IA) OF THE ACT, DISALLOWED THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE OF FREIGHT OF RS. 20,04,133/- AND MADE ADDITION OF THE SAME TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THA T FALL IN THE OVER ALL GP ITA NO.551/AHD/2011(BY REVEN UE) CO NO.267/AHD/2011 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. M/S.RAJ DYEING PVT.LTD. ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 4 - WAS ON ACCOUNT OF COMMENCING OWN PRODUCTION FOR THE FIRST TIME DURING THE YEAR; THE GP IN JOB-WORK CHARGES TAKEN SEPARATE LY IS 25.41% DURING THE YEAR, AS AGAINST 21.09% IN THE PRECEDING YEAR; THE FALL IN OVERALL GP IS ON ACCOUNT OF LOW GP OF 4.99% IN OWN PRODUCTION; AS MAY BE SEEN FROM PARA 3.2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THESE FACTS WE RE EXPLAINED TO AO; ALL THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE PRODUCED BEFORE AO; THE SALES HAVE GONE UP SUBSTANTIALLY FROM RS.2.38 CRORES TO RS.6.49 CRO RES; THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN SEPARATE SETS OF BOOKS; THE DISCREPANCY IN PURCHASES FROM M/S.K.BHAVESH TEXTILES STANDS EXPLAI NED AS MAY BE SEEN FROM PARA 3.3.(III) OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE C IT(A) ACCEPTED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AS COGENT AND TANGLE AN D HELD THAT REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IS UNWARRANTED ON THE FACTS OF TH E CASE. FURTHER, THE FALL IN GP IS EXPLAINED TO BE ATTRIBUTABLE TO COMME NCING OWN PRODUCTION DURING THE YEAR. AO DID NOT CONTROVERT THIS EXPLAN ATION. THEREFORE, HE DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.58,44,127/-. REGARDING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE FREIGHT EXPENSES OF RS.20,0 4,133/- BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. TH E LD.CIT(A) HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE ADMITS THE FAILURE TO DEDUCT TAX, BUT IT CONTENDS THAT IN VIEW OF ESTIMATION OF GP, THE DISALLOWANCE IS NOT CALLED FOR. THE LD.CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT AS HE HAD DELETED, THE ADDITION ON AC COUNT OF LOW GP, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE FAILS AND, HENCE, HE DIS MISSED THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND UPHELD THE ADDITION MADE U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT OF RS.20,04,133/-. 6. BEING AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE SAID ORDER, BOTH THE PARTIES ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE US. ITA NO.551/AHD/2011(BY REVEN UE) CO NO.267/AHD/2011 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. M/S.RAJ DYEING PVT.LTD. ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 5 - 7. THE LD.SR ARGUED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS NOT DEA LT WITH THE OBJECTIONS OF THE AO WHILE DELETING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF LOW GP. HE POINTED OUT FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE LD.AO HAS OB SERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED COMPLETE SET OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR VERIFICATION AND THAT THE CORRECTNESS AND COMPLETEN ESS OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT CANNOT BE VERIFIED. THE AO HAS FURTHER NOT ED THAT THE AUDIT REPORT IN FORM 3CD, THE AUDITOR HAS HIMSELF ADMITTE D IN COL.28 OF THE REPORT THAT NO PROPER STOCK REGISTER HAS BEEN MAINT AINED FOR STOCK. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS ALSO OBSERVED THA T DURING THE YEAR, THE ASSESSEE SIMULTANEOUSLY CARRIED OUT BOTH THE UNITS OF JOB WORK AS WELL AS OWN PRODUCTION AND THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED SEPARATE SETS OF BOOKS, SUCH AS, PURCHASE REGISTER, SALES REGISTER, STOCK REGISTER, CONSUMPTION RECORD, PRODUCTION, ETC. FOR BOTH THE DIVISIONS. THE LD.DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT FROM THE PARTY-WISE DETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO PURCHASES EFFECTED AND PAYM ENT MADE, THE AO FOUND THAT IT WAS NOT VERIFIABLE. THE AO ISSUED NO TICES U/S.133(6) OF THE ACT ON RANDOM BASIS TO VARIOUS PARTIES. IN ONE CAS E OF M/S.K.BHAVESH TEXTILES, AHMEDABAD, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN AN AMOU NT OF RS.2,59,865/- AS PURCHASES MADE FROM THE SAID PARTY. HOWEVER, AS PER BOOKS OF M/S.K.BHAVESH TEXTILES, THE TRANSACTIONS OF SALES M ADE WITH THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY AND THE VALUE COMES TO RS.3,83,415 /- THUS, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE OF RS.1,23,550/-. ON FURTHER SCRUTINY, THE AO FOUND THAT THIS AMOUNT OF RS.1,23,550/- HAS BEEN SHOWN BY THE ASSES SEE IN THE NAME OF M/S.GANESH TEXTILES. THE AO HAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE PAYMENT IN RESPECT OF THE SAID AMOUNT HAS BEEN SHOWN IN THE BO OKS OF M/S.K.BHAVESH TEXTILES. THIS SHOWS THAT THE DETAIL S OF PARTY-WISE ITA NO.551/AHD/2011(BY REVEN UE) CO NO.267/AHD/2011 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. M/S.RAJ DYEING PVT.LTD. ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 6 - PURCHASES SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT VERIFIAB LE FROM ITS BOOKS. THE AO HAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF FREIGHT IN OWN PRODUCTION ONLY WHEN ALL THE OTHE R EXPENSES WERE PROPORTIONATELY BIFURCATED IN BOTH THE UNITS, THAT TOO WITHOUT ANY BASIS. FROM THIS, IT IS CLEAR THAT TO SHOW HIGHER RATE OF GP IN JOB WORK UNIT, THE ASSESSEE HAS DELIBERATELY AVOIDED SHOWING ANY FREIG HT EXPENSES IN RESPECT OF THIS UNIT. THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE PURCHASES OF C OAL FROM OUTSIDE AND PAID FREIGHT ON THE SAME. COAL IS USED IN THE PROC ESS OF CLOTH AND THE SAME IS INEVITABLE IN JOB WORK AS WELL AS OWN PRODU CTION. HOWEVER, IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEBITED ANY EXPENSE IN RELATION TO FREIGHT CHARGES PAID IN RESPECT OF THE COAL USED IN JOB-WORKS. THEREFORE, IT WAS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD.DR THAT THE LD.CIT(A), WITHOUT MEETING THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE AO, WAS NOT JUSTIFI ED IN HOLDING THAT ALL THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO A ND THAT FALL IN GP IS EXPLAINED TO THE ATTRIBUTABLE TO COMMENCING OWN PRO DUCTION DURING THE YEAR AND THAT THE AO DID NOT CONTROVERT THIS EXPLAN ATION OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.AR HAS ARGUED THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF IT ACT, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT REQUIRED TO MAINTAI N SEPARATE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR EACH DIVISION. HE ARGUED THAT THE SAM E IS NECESSARY FOR THE ASSESSEE WHEN IT MAKES A CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION UNDER CHAPTER VI-A OF THE ACT. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN PARA 3.3 OF HIS ORDER, THE AO SAYS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED COMPLETE BOOKS OF ACC OUNTS; MEANING THEREBY THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED STOCK REGISTER. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO DENIED THE PRODUCTION OF THE BOOKS OF A CCOUNTS, SUCH AS, CASH-BOOK LEDGER, ETC. THUS, IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT IT IS NOT THE CASE ITA NO.551/AHD/2011(BY REVEN UE) CO NO.267/AHD/2011 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. M/S.RAJ DYEING PVT.LTD. ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 7 - WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBMITTED THE BOOKS OF A CCOUNTS AT ALL. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IT IS FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCO UNTS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AO FOUND ABOUT THE PAYMENT OF FREIGHT CHARGES M ADE FOR COAL AND THE DISCREPANCY REGARDING THE PAYMENT MADE TO M/S.K.BHA VESH TEXTILES. HE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) I N DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON THE GROUND THAT THE GP RATE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE ON JO B-WORK CHARGES WAS 25.41% DURING THE YEAR AS AGAINST 21.09% IN THE IMM EDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR AND THAT THE FALL IN GP WAS IN THE OWN PRODUCTION WHICH WAS 4.99%. THE LD.AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN CAS E THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) DELETING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF LOW G P IS DISTURBED, THEN THE ADDITION MADE OF RS.20,04,133/- BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT HAS TO BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF AO TO RE- EXAMINE THE SAME IN THE LIGHT OF THE AMENDMENT MADE BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2013, WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN PROVIDED THAT IF THE RECIPIENT OF THE AMOUNT SHOWS THE AMOUNT AS ITS INCOME AND PAYS TAX THEREON, THEN NO DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE CAN BE MADE IN THE HAND S OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD . IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROCESS HOUSE AND TRADING IN CLOTH DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE AO REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND ESTIMATED GROSS PROFIT AT THE RATE 18.11% IN PLACE OF 9.06% AND THEREBY MADE ADDITION OF RS.58,4 4,127/-. ON APPEAL, THE LD.CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. ITA NO.551/AHD/2011(BY REVEN UE) CO NO.267/AHD/2011 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. M/S.RAJ DYEING PVT.LTD. ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 8 - 9.1. THE LD.DR CONTENDED BEFORE US THAT REJECTION O F BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BY THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN THE INSTANT CASE AND THE LD.CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING OTHERWISE. WE FIND THAT TH E BOOK RESULT WAS REJECTED BY THE AO ON THE GROUND THAT THE GROSS PRO FIT RATE DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS 9.06% WHICH WAS LESS THAN THE GROS S PROFIT RATE OF 21.06% IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR, NO STOCK REGISTER WAS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PR ODUCED COMPLETE SET OF BOOK OF ACCOUNT, AND DEFECT WAS FOUND ON VERIFICATI ON OF CREDITORS FOR PURCHASES. WE FIND THAT THE LD.CIT(A) FOUND THAT R EASON FOR LOW GROSS PROFIT RATE IN THE YEAR WAS ON ACCOUNT OF COMMENCEM ENT OF OWN TRADING DURING THE YEAR. IN THE EARLIER YEAR, THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED ONLY IN JOB- WORK AND DURING THE YEAR IT HAS ALSO DONE OWN TRADI NG AND GROSS PROFIT IN OWN TRADING CANNOT BE THE SAME AS GROSS PROFIT OF J OB-WORK. WE FIND THAT THIS EXPLANATION WAS ALSO GIVEN BY THE ASSESSE E BEFORE THE AO AND THE AO COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE SAME. THUS, THE LD .CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN OBSERVING THAT THE REASON FOR LOW GROSS PROFIT W AS REASONABLY EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. 9.2. THE LD.DR COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY SPECIFIC BOO KS OF ACCOUNT WHICH WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO. THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE THAT THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE MAINTAINED SEPARATE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR JOB- WORK BUSINESS AND OWN TRADING BUSINESS IS WITHOUT A NY LEGAL BASIS AND MERELY ONE SET OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WAS MAINTAINED B Y THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ENTIRE BUSINESS, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT PROPER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE EITHER NOT MAINTAINED OR NOT PRODUCED. FURTHER, TH E LD.DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT ON VERIFICATION OF ACCOUNTS FROM VARIOUS PARTI ES, ONLY DIFFERENCE WAS ITA NO.551/AHD/2011(BY REVEN UE) CO NO.267/AHD/2011 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. M/S.RAJ DYEING PVT.LTD. ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 9 - FOUND IN RESPECT OF ACCOUNT OF ONE PARTY; NAMELY, M /S.K.BHAVESH TEXTILES. AS PER THE LD.DR, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN LESS PURCHASE OF S.1,23,550/- FROM THE SAID PARTY AND IN PLACE OF TH E SAID PARTY, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE SAID PURCHASES FROM M/S.GANE SH TEXTILES. WE FIND THAT IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN PURCHASE AT A LESS AMOUNT THAN THE ACTUAL PURCHASE MADE BY IT. MERE FINDING OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE INSTEAD OF SHOWING PURCHASES OF RS.1,23,550/- FROM M/S.K.BHAVESH TEXTILES HAS SH OWN PURCHASES FROM M/S.GANESH TEXTILES IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE A SSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT M/S.K.BHAVESH TEXTILES AND M/S.GANESH TEXTILES WERE SISTER-CONCERNS AND, THEREFORE, BY MISTAKE THE PURCHASES WERE SHOW N FROM M/S.GANESH TEXTILES IN PLACE OF M/S.K.BHAVESH TEXTILES. WE FI ND THAT NO DEFECT IN THE COMPLETENESS OR CORRECTNESS OF THE PURCHASES TA KEN IN ITS ENTIRETY OR PAYMENT AGAINST PURCHASES WAS FOUND BY THE REVENUE. THE ABOVE MISTAKE OF NAME ONLY DOES NOT ENABLE REVENUE TO REJ ECT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 9.3. IN OUR VIEW, THE BOOK RESULT CANNOT BE REJECTE D LIGHTLY WITHOUT COGENT AND CONVINCING REASONS. WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR IN THE FINDING OF THE LD.CIT(A). FURTHER, WE FIND THAT THE ESTIMA TE OF GP AT 18.11% EVEN IN RESPECT OF TURNOVER RELATING TO OWN TRADING OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE AO WAS WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND CONSEQUENTLY UNTENABLE . THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY GOOD REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A). THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. THE GROUND OF THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 10. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE S UBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE CROSS-OBJECTION ARISES ONLY WHE N THE APPEAL OF THE ITA NO.551/AHD/2011(BY REVEN UE) CO NO.267/AHD/2011 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. M/S.RAJ DYEING PVT.LTD. ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 10 - REVENUE IS ALLOWED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SUBMISSIO N, OF THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE AND IN VIEW OF OUR DECISION IN THE APP EAL, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE CROSS-OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCO RDINGLY, THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AS WEL L AS THE CROSS- OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BOTH ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED HER EINABOVE AT CAPTION PAGE SD/- SD/- ( D.K. TYAGI ) ( N.S. SAINI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 19/12/2013 0.., .../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS '/ + ',1 2'1, '/ + ',1 2'1, '/ + ',1 2'1, '/ + ',1 2'1,/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. !& / THE APPELLANT 2. '(!& / THE RESPONDENT. 3. , )3 / CONCERNED CIT 4. )3() / THE CIT(A)-XI, AHMEDABAD 5. 167 ', , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 7 8* / GUARD FILE. '/) '/) '/) '/) / BY ORDER, (1, ', //TRUE COPY// 9 99 9/ // / $ $ $ $ ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 16/17.12.13 (DICTATION-PAD 1 9+10-PAGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 17.12.13 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 5. DATE ON WHICH FAIR ORDER PLACED BEFORE OTHER MEMBER 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S.19.12.13 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 19.12.13 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER