Shri Ganesh Agrawal, Ujjain V. Pr. CIT Ujjain, Ujjain

ITA 612/Ind/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4037 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-01-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 03-12-2020
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 25-07-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S S MANTRI
• Assessee Lawyers: S S DESHPANDE
• Keywords: Revision of order; Difference of opinion; Reason to believe; Change of opinion; Set aside
• Section: 44AD; 143(3); 68; 263

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HEARD THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING ITA NO.612/IND/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2010-11 SHRI GANESH AGRAWAL UJJAIN / VS. PR. CIT - I, UJJAIN ( APPELLANT ) ( REVENUE ) P.A. NO. AJLPA0509L APPELLANT BY SHRI S.S. DESHPANDE, AR REVENUE BY SHRI S.S. MANTRI, CIT - DR DATE OF HEARING: 15.12.2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 12.01.2021 / O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, J.M: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IN SHORT LD. PR. C IT)-I, UJJAIN, DATED 28.03.2019 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 -11. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEA L: 1. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT IS ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW AND HENCE BE SET ASIDE. 2. THE LD. PR. CIT HAS ERRED IN PASSING THE ORDER U /S 263 ON THE GANESH AGRAWAL /ITANO.612/IND/2019 2 GROUND THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. AO IS ERRON EOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. 3. IT WAS PROVED BEFORE THE LD. PR. CIT THAT THE AS SESSMENT WAS FRAMED AFTER DUE SCRUTINY OF FACTS AND AFTER VERIFI CATION OF THE DETAILS FOR WHICH THE LD. PR. CIT HAS OBSERVED THAT THE AO HAS ERRED IN APPLYING THE NET PROFIT RATIO OF 3% ON THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,29,98,456/-. SINCE SCRUTINY WAS MADE BY THE LD . AO THE SAME CANNOT BE TREATED AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL AND AS SUCH ACTION U/S 263 IS BAD IN LAW. 4. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. PR. CIT BE QUASHED. 2. THE EFFECTIVE GROUND IS AGAINST INVOKING THE PRO VISION OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT, THEREBY, REVISING THE ASSESSMENT OR DER. 3. THE FACTS GIVING RISE TO THE PRESENT APPEAL ARE THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REOPENED AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLE TED ON 28.11.2016, ASSESSING INCOME AT RS. 9,89,825/-. SUB SEQUENTLY, THE LD. PR. CIT AFTER EXAMINING THE RECORDS INVOKED THE PROVISION OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT, ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED ONLY RS. 1,97,73,072/- AS PER THE FORM NO.16A. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS FACTUALLY INCORRECT TO ACCEPT BALANCE RECEIPTS OF RS.1,29,98,456/- BEING TRANSPORT CONTRACT RECEIPTS AND APPLYING 3% N.P. ON ENTIRE RECEIPT OF RS.3,27,71,528/-. IN RESP ONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 263 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS E XPLANATION WHICH WAS NOT FOUND TO BE ACCEPTABLE. LD. PR. CIT SET ASI DE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE ISSUE AFRESH. 4. AGGRIEVED AGAINST THIS THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED T HE SUBMISSIONS AS MADE IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. LD. COUNSEL SUBMIT TED THAT IN THIS GANESH AGRAWAL /ITANO.612/IND/2019 3 CASE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 OF THE ACT WAS REOPENED, THEREBY, THE INCOME WAS ASSESSED AT RS. 9,89,825/-. HE CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE ALL THE ENQUIRI ES, FURTHER HE REITERATED THE SUBMISSION AS MADE IN THE WRITTEN SY NOPSIS. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER : THE ASSESSE IS AN INDIVIDUAL DERIVING INCOME FROM C OMMISSION OF TRANSPORT BUSINESS. THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT OWN MY TRUCKS. NO BOOKS HAVE BEEN MAINTAINED AND THE INCOME IS SHOWN O N AN ESTIMATED BASIS. THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ESTIM ATING THE INCOME @ 3% OF THE TOTAL RECEIPTS AT RS.1,97,73,072/- THER EBY DECLARING THE INCOME OF RS.5,93,192/-. 2. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE NOTICE U/S 147 WAS ISSUED ON THE GROUND THAT THE PROFIT SHOWN IS NOT RELIABLE AND AS PER THE INF ORMATION THE NET PROFIT SHOULD BE RS.15,18,846/-. IN RESPONSE TO NOTI CE U/S 147 IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE RETURN FILED EARLIER MAY BE TREATE D AS A RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 147. HOWEVER, THE REVISED INCOME WAS DECLARED SHOWING THE RECEIPT OF RS.3,27,71,528/- AND D ECLARING THE INCOME @ 3% WHICH CAME TO RS.9,83,145/-. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE THE NECESSARY DETAILS AND E XPLANATION IN RESPECT OF THE REVISED INCOME DECLARED. VARIOUS QUERI ES WERE RAISED AND THE NECESSARY EXPLANATION WAS OFFERED. THE LD. AO WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT SCRUTINIZED THE BANK STATEMENT AND VE RIFIED THE TOTAL RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.3,27,71,528/-. AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE SUBMISSIONS AND THE DETAILS FILED THE LD. AO ACCEPTED THE REVISED INCOME DECLARED AT RS.989,825/-. IN PARA 1 THE LD. A O OBSERVED AS UNDER: THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED NET PROFIT OF RS.5,93,192/ - ON GROSS RECEIPTS OF RS.19737072/- AT THE RATE OF 2.99% ON T OTAL TURNOVER. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT HE HAS NOT MAINTAIN ED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THUS, HE HAS NOT PREPARED P/L ACCOUNT, CA PITAL ACCOUNT AND BALANCE SHEET, THEREFORE HE IS NOT ABLE TO PRODU CE THE SAME. VERIFICATION OF BANK STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSE SSEE TOTAL TURNOVER WAS FOUND AT RS.32771528/- CONSIDERING THE A BOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, NET PROFIT OF RS.983145/- AT THE RATE OF 3% IS APPLIED ON TOTAL RECEIPTS OF RS.32771528/-. AS THE A SSESSEE HAS ALREADY DECLARED THE NET PROFIT OF RS.593192/-, THERE FORE, DIFFERENCE OF NET PROFIT AN AMOUNT OF RS.389953/- IS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. GANESH AGRAWAL /ITANO.612/IND/2019 4 4. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE LD. PR. CIT ISSUED A NOTICED TO IN VOKE THE PROVISION U/S 263 WITH THE REASONS THAT THE RECEIPT FROM THE CONTRACT IS ONLY RS.1,97,73,072/- WHILE THE BANK ACCOUNT SHO WS THE DEPOSIT OF RS.3,27,71,528/- WHICH MEANS THE BALANCE WAS THE IN COME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND THE PROFIT @3% CANNOT BE APPLIED. O N THIS BASIS THE LD. PR. CIT DIRECTED TO THE AO TO EXAMINE THIS ISSUE IN DETAIL IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN THE TRUE STATE OF FACTS U/S 143(3) HAS BEEN HELD TO BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REV ENUE. 5. BEFORE THE LD. PCIT A DETAILED SUBMISSION WAS MADE AND IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS APPLIED THE NET PRO FIT RATE OF 3% ON THE TOTAL RECEIPT FROM THE CONTRACT BUSINESS WHICH WAS PROPERLY EXAMINED BY THE LD. A.O. AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THESE DETAILS THE LD. A.O. HAS ACCEPTED THE REVISED COMPUTATION OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THE ORDER CANNOT BE SAID TO BE ERRONEOUS AND IT IS A MERE CHANGE OF OPINION AND AS SUCH PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 ARE NOT APPLICABLE. 6. THE LD. PCIT IN PARA 4.2 REMARKED THAT THE A.O. IS REQUIRED TO EXAMINE THE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK AND ASCERTAIN TRUE STATE OF FACTS. HE THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, BEING ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. 7. IT IS HUMBLY SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN FRAMED AFTER DUE VERIFICATION OF THE FACTS AND MATERIAL ON RECORD, THE ACTION U/S. 263 IS BAD IN LAW. THE ASSESSEE FILED COMPLETE EXPL ANATION AND DETAILS OF THE BANK ACCOUNT. THERE IS NO OTHER BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE EXCEPT THE TRANSPORT COMMISSION. THE DETAILS OF THE AMOUNT TRANSFERRED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WITH THE NAMES AND THE WITHDRAWALS WER E SUBMITTED. IT WOULD BE SEEN FROM THESE DETAILS THAT MOST OF THE A MOUNTS CREDITED WERE THROUGH CLEARING WHICH REPRESENTED THE TRANSPORT RE CEIPTS. AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE DETAILS THE LD. A.O. ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE ABOUT THE COMMISSION RECEIPT OF THE TRANSP ORT BUSINESS ON THE AMOUNTS CREDITED IN THE BANK. THIS FINDS SUPPORT WI TH THE JUDGEMENT OF CIT VS. ANIL KUMAR JAIN REPORTED IN 23LTJ 268 (MP) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE CREDITS IN THE BANK REPRESENTS THE SA LE PROCEEDS AND ONLY THE PROFIT ON THEM CAN BE TAXED. UNDER THESE CIRCUM STANCES, THE ORDER CANNOT BE SAID TO BE ERRONEOUS. IT IS HUMBLY SUBMIT TED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS NEITHER ERRONEOUS NOR IS PREJUD ICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE AND AS SUCH THE ACTION ULS 263 IS BAD IN LAW. 8. IN THIS CONNECTION WE WOULD LIKE TO DRAW YOUR HONOU RS KIND ATTENTION TO THE VARIOUS HIGH COURT JUDGMENTS WHICH ARE AS UN DER:- CIT VIS. GOVINDRAM SAKSERIA TRUST 166 ITR P.580 (MP) CIT VIS. RATLAM COAL ASH CO. 171 ITR P.141 (MP) CIT VIS. A.K. TIMBER 177 ITRP.486 (PUNJAB) CIT VIS. GABRIEL (INDIA) LTD. 203 ITR P.108 (BORN.) THE VARIOUS TRIBUNALS HAVE ALSO TAKEN THE SAME VIEW IN 57 TTJ P.257, GANESH AGRAWAL /ITANO.612/IND/2019 5 65 LTD P.1. THE INDORE TRIBUNAL HAS ALSO FOLLOWED T HESE JUDGMENTS IN MANY CASES. COMING TO THE VARIOUS CASE LAWS, WE WOULD LIKE TO D RAW YOUR HONOUR'S KIND ATTENTION TO THE JUDGMENTS AS UNDER:- A. CIT V/S. RATLAM COAL ASH CO. 171 ITR P.141 (M.P.):- AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT WAS REVISED BY THE COMMISSIO NER U/S. 263, ON THE GROUND THAT THE INCOME TAX OFFICER HAD NOT MADE PROPER ENQUIRIES. THE ORDER OF REVISION WAS SET-ASIDE BY THE TRIBUNAL BECAUSE IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED REQUISITE INF ORMATION AND THE INCOME TAX OFFICER HAD COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT AFT ER CONSIDERING ALL FACTS. HELD, THAT THE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN LAW REVERS ING THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER U/S. 263. B. CIT V/S. A.K. TIMBER 177 ITR P.486 (PUNJAB):- THE INCOME TAX OFFICER COMPLETED ASSESSMENT U/S.144 AND GRANTED REGISTRATION TO THE FIRM. THE CIT HELD THAT THE ITO SHOULD HAVE CANCELLED THE REGISTRATION AND FAILURE ON HIS PART TO DO SO, CONSTITUTED AN ERROR U/S.263. HELD, IF THE ASSESSEE FIRM CAN SATISFY THE REVENUE THAT THERE WAS NO WILLFUL DEFAULT, THE BENEFIT OF CONTINUATION OF REGISTRATION MAY NOT BE DENIED. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE TRIBUNAL WAS RI GHT IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT THERE WAS NO ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER AND THEREFORE THE COMMISSIONER HAD NO JURISDICTION ULS.263 IN RESPECT THEREOF. C: CIT V/S. GABRIEL (INDIA) LTD. 203 ITR P.108 (BOM.):- HELD, THAT THE INCOME TAX OFFICER HAD MADE ENQUIRIE S IN REGARD TO THE NATURE OF THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN A DETAILED EXPLANATION IN THAT REGARD BY A LE TTER IN WRITING, EVIDENTLY THE CLAIM WAS ALLOWED BY THE ITO ON BEING SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. THE DECISION OF THE IN COME TAX OFFICER COULD NOT BE HELD TO BE ERRONEOUS SIMPLY BECAUSE IN HIS ORDER HE DID NOT MADE AN ELABORATE DISCUSSION. THE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT ULS.263. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ACTI ON U/S. 263 IS BAD IN LAW AND AS SUCH THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE QUASHED. 5. LD. PR. CIT-DR OPPOSED THESE SUBMISSIONS AND SUB MITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT MAKE ANY ENQUIRY IN R ESPECT OF THE PROFIT MARGIN RELATED TO OTHER DEPOSITS FOUND IN TH E BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER CASUALLY GANESH AGRAWAL /ITANO.612/IND/2019 6 ACCEPTED IN A MECHANICAL MANNER WITHOUT CONDUCTING ENQUIRY ABOUT THE RECEIPTS WHICH WERE NOT RELATED TO FORM NO.16A. HENCE, THE ASSESSMENT SO FRAMED IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL T O THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. 6. IN REJOINDER LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTE D OUT THAT THE REASON FOR REOPENING TO THE ASSESSMENT AND REVISING THE ASSESSMENT ARE SAME. HE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE REASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS HAD MADE DETAILED ENQUIRY, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMEN T SO FRAMED CANNOT BE HELD TO BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO T HE INTEREST OF REVENUE. HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE REPLY MADE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE SUBMITTED THAT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFF ICER IT WAS CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED AMOUNT OF RS.3,27,71,528/- AGAINST THE TRANSPORT WORK, THE DE TAILS WHICH WAS ENCLOSED BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE HAS ALSO TAKE N US THROUGH THE BANK ACCOUNT STATEMENT ENCLOSED WITH PAPER BOOK. 7. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT LD. PR. CIT ISSUE D SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 25.03.2019. THE RELEVANT CONTENTS OF T HE NOTICE RECORDED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER ARE REPRODUCED AS UN DER: IN THIS CASE THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y.2011-12 ON 09.01.2012 SHOWING TOTA L INCOME OF RS.5,99,870/-. THE ASSESSEE IS A TRANSPORT CONTR ACTOR. THE CASE WAS OPENED FOR SCRUTINY U/S 147 OF THE ACT AND ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3)/147 WAS COMPL ETED ON 28.11.2016 AT AN ASSESSED INCOME OF RS.9,89,825/- BY APPLYING 3& N.P. ON TOTAL RECEIPT OF RS.3,27,71,52 8/- BY TRANSPORT CONTRACT, WHICH IS CONSIDERED ERRONEOUS AN D PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE FOR THE FOLL OWING REASONS: GANESH AGRAWAL /ITANO.612/IND/2019 7 1. THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED ONLY 1,97,73,072/- AS PER F ORM NO.16A, HOWEVER CREDIT IN BANK SHOWED IT AT 3,27,71, 528/- ITSELT. THUS BASICALLY THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT CLARIFIE D ABOUT SUCH BALANCE INCOME I.E. 3,27,71,528-19773072= 1,29,98,456/- NOT INCORPORATED IN FORM NO.16A. THE A SSESSEE VIDE HIS REPLY DATED 25.11.2016 HAD CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT HE HAD GOT GOVT. CONTRACTS ONLY. THUS THERE WAS NO E VIDENCE THAT SUCH RS.1,29,98,456/- WAS GENERATED FROM TRANSP ORT CONTRACT ONLY OR BY SOME OTHER BUSINESS/SOURCE. IN FACT THE AO HAD APPLIED 3% NET PROFIT OVER THIS AMOUNT OF RS.1,29,98,456/- ALSO ALONG WITH RS.1,97,73,072/- O F TRANSPORT CONTRACT RECEIPT WHEREAS THE CONCEALED INC OME OF RS.1,29,98,456/- WAS GENERATED BY WHICH SOURCE WAS NOT CLEAR AND DOES NOT FALL UNDER TRANSPORT CONTRACT AS CLAIMED. THE AO WAS FACTUALLY INCURRED TO ACCEPT BALANCE RECE IPTS OF RS.1,29,98,456/- BEING TRANSPORT CONTRACT RECEIPTS AND APPLYING 3% NET PROFIT ON ENTIRE RECEIPT OF RS.3,27,71,528/-. 2. HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE BEING GOVT. CONTRACTOR HAD REC EIVED ONLY RS.1,97,73,072/- FROM GOVT. DEPARTMENT AND THE BANK A/C SHOWED DEPOSITS OF RS.3,27,71,528/- WHICH MEANS BALANCE RS.1,29,98,456/- WAS INCOME FROM OTHER SOUR CE ONLY OVER WHICH 3% PROFIT CANNOT BE APPLIED ON SUCH RECE IPT WHICH WAS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCE FOR WHICH NO INCOME/EXPENDITURE A/C & VOUCHERS WERE MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AND AS SUCH ENTIRE RECEIPT OF RS.1,29,98,45 6/- WAS LIABLE FOR ADDITION IN ABSENCE OF ANY EXPLANATION U /S 68 OF THE IT ACT OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. IN THE LIGHT OF ENTIRE FACTS DISCUSSED ABOVE, I AM O F THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) ON 28.11.2016 FOR A.Y. 2010-11 IN YOUR CASE IF ERRONEOUS AS WELL AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE, WHICH REQUIRES TO BE REVISED U/S 263. HOWEVER, BEFOR E I PROCEED TO INVOKE THE POWERS U/S 263 AND PASS AN APPRECIATE ORDER, I DEEM IT PROPER TO GIVE YOU AN OPP ORTUNITY OF BEING HEAR IN THE MATTER. 8. FURTHER, WE FIND THAT IN THIS CASE NOTICE U/S 14 7 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY ASKED TO EX PLAIN TURNOVER AND GANESH AGRAWAL /ITANO.612/IND/2019 8 PROFIT THEREON. THE REASONS FOR REOPENING AS ENCLOS ED IN THE PAPER BOOK AT PAGE NO.20 STATES AS UNDER: (L ) THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED 'IN TRANSPORT ACTIVITY UNDER THE TITLE OF HIS PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM NAMELY 'M/S. SHREE GANESH ROAD L INES' .. ON PERUSAL OF RETURN OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11) IT IS NOTICED THAT THE TURNOVER WAS AT RS. 1,97,37,072/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GOT HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AUDITED. AS SUCH THE ASSESSEE HAS VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AD . (2) ON PERUSAL OF COMPUTATION OF INCOME IT IS NOTIC ED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN NET PROFIT OF RS.5,93,192/- WHICH IS 2.99 PERCENT OF THE TURNOVER. THE ESTIMATION OF PROFIT IS NOT RELIABLE .AS THE ACCOUNTS WERE NOT AUDITED. FURTHER) THE OFFICE IS IN POSSESSION OF INFORMATION THAT THE NET PROFIT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS AT RS.15,81,846/- (3) IN THE VIEW OF THESE FACTS, I AM SATISFIED AND HA VE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT 'INCOME OF RS.9,88,624/- HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AS PER THE MEANING PROVIDED TO THESE WORDS IN SECTION 147 OF INCOME TAX ACT., LIMITATION OF WHICH WILL EXPIRES ON 31/03/2017. 9. FURTHER, IT IS SEEN THAT THERE IS A CORRESPONDEN CE BETWEEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE AF ORESAID ISSUE. UNDER THESE UNDISPUTED FACTS, IT CANNOT BE CONSTRUE D THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MADE ANY ENQUIRY. LOOKING TO THE NATURE OF BUSINESS AND MORE PARTICULARLY NO MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE BANK DEPOSITS WERE NOT RELATED TO THE TRANSPORT BUSINESS AND THE PROFI T RATE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT CORRECT. UNDER THESE FACT, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE LD. PR. CIT WAS NOT JUSTIF IED IN INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. HENCE, WE HER EBY, QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER. GROUNDS RAISED IN THIS APPEAL ARE A LLOWED. GANESH AGRAWAL /ITANO.612/IND/2019 9 10. IN RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLO WED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12.01.202 1. SD/- (MANISH BORAD) SD/- (KUL BHARAT) A CCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER INDORE; DATED : 12/01/2021 PATEL/PS COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/PR. CIT/ CIT (A)/ITAT (DR)/GUAR D FILE. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INDORE