Shakuntala Lamba, Bhiwani V. ACIT, Bhiwani

ITA 6594/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5115 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 18-07-2017
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 26-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T VASANTHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: NK JAIN; NATASHA SANGWAN S
• Keywords: Loose papers; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 44AD; 143(3); 142(1); 133A; 144

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 6591/DEL/2016 A.Y. : 2012-13 KRISHAN SINGH LAMBA, H.NO. 1751, HUDA, SECTOR-13, DISTT. BHIWANI -127021 (PAN: AAMPL6694D) VS. ACIT , SCO-222, O/O INCOME TAX, HUDA CITY CENTRE, BHIWANI - 127021 AND AND AND AND I.T.A. NO. 6594/DEL/2016 A.Y. : 2012-13 SHAKUNTLA LAMBA, H.NO. 1751, HUDA, SECTOR-13, DISTT. BHIWANI -127021 (PAN: AAMPL6695C) VS. ACIT, SCO-222, O/O INCOME TAX, HUDA CITY CENTRE, BHIWANI 127021 (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. N.K. JAIN, & MS. NATASHA SANGWAN, ADVOCATES, DEPARTMENT BY : SH. T. VASANTHAN, SR. DR ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER THESE ARE THE APPEALS FILED BY THE SEPARATE ASSESS ES AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), BOTH DATED 26.10.2016 AND PER TAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. SINCE THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THESE APPEAL S ARE COMMON AND IDENTICAL, HENCE, THE SAME WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING D ISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON 2 ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, BY DEALING WITH ITA NO. 6591/DEL/2016 (AY 2012-13). 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL (ITA N O. 6594/DEL/2016) (AY 2012-13) READ AS UNDER:- 1. THAT LD. CIT(A) IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE HAS ERRED I N LAW IN UPHOLDING THE ESTIMATION OF INCOME FOR HANUMAN GRAM UDYOG MANDAI DONE BY THE AO ON THE BASIS OF DUMB DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE NOT TAKEN INTO POSSESSION FROM THE ASSESSEE AND WERE EVEN IMPOUNDED AGAINST LAW FROM A PERSON WHO WAS NOT AUTHORIZED AND NOT IN HIS PRESEN CE. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACT IN CONFIRMING INCOME FROM BRICK KILN HANUMAN G RAM UDYOG MANDAI OF APPELLANT WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE OR A NY MATERIAL AS THE AO COMPUTED THEE INCOME ARBITRARIL Y BY ESTIMATING THE SAME WITHOUT CONFRONTING THE MATERIA L FOR SUCH ESTIMATE IGNORING THE PRINCIPLES APPLIED IN BE ST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT & SECTION 44AD FOR ESTIMATING T HE PRODUCTION AND PRICE OF BRICKS. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE AO AGAINST FACTS AND WITHOUT ANY BASIS OR EVIDE NCE MADE THE ALLEGED COMPUTATION AND OBTAINED THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE APPELLANT WHICH IS AGAINST LAW AN D FACTS AND NOT ADMISSIBLE, AS ANY ADMISSION OF THE APPELLANT WHICH IS AGAINST FACTS IS NOT BINDING ON THE 3 APPELLANT. THE ADMISSION BEING AGAINST FACTS AND NOT SUPPORTED WITH ANY MATERIAL IS LIABLE TO BE IGNORED IN LAW AND THEREFORE, THE ADDITION OF INCOME BASED ON THE SAME IS ALSO LIABLE TO BE CANCELLED. 4. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO ERRED IN CONSIDERING T HE ALLEGED COMPUTATION FOR ESTIMATION ON THE BASIS OF ACCEPTANCE, SINCE THE APPELLANT HAD DISPUTED THE SA ME COMPUTATION FOR EXCESSIVE TURNOVER AND HIGH RATE OF PROFIT, WITH REASONS IN HER PETITION U/S 144 BEFORE THE JCIT, BHIWANI ON 28/03/2015. 5. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ORDER IS ALSO BAD IN LAW BECAUSE NO DATE OF HEARING WAS FIXED AFTER 28/03/2015 FOR CONFRONTING THE COMPUTATI ON OF NET PROFIT AS PROMISED BEFORE THE JCIT ON 28/03/2 015 AND THE AO PASSED THE PREDETERMINED AND BIASED ORDE R WITHOUT PROVIDING FULL AND FAIR OPPORTUNITY AFTER RECALCULATION. THEREFORE, THE ESTIMATION IS ARBITRAR Y AND AGAINST PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 6. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE COMPUTATION OF THE INCOME ESTIMATION, WITHOUT ANY BASIS, IGNORING THE PRINCIPLE OF BEST JUDGMENT METHOD AND THE INCOME SHOULD HAVE BEEN ESTIMATED BY APPLYING NET R ATE OF PROFIT @ 8% AS PROVIDED U/S 44AD AS IS APPLIED I N NO 4 BOOKS CASE AND ALSO DONE IN THE CASES OF OTHER BRIC K KILN IN THE LOCALITY. 7. WITHOUT PREJUDICE EVEN ON MERITS THE MODE OF COMPUTATION OF THE INCOME, CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A ), IS BAD IN LAW AND AGAINST FACTS ON THE FOLLOWING REASO NS: I) THAT THE SALE PRICE APPLIED TO DIFFERENT QUALITY OF THE BRICKS IS QUITE EXCESSIVE, ARBITRARY AND AGAINS T THE FACTS AND IGNORING THE RATES OF THE LOCAL MARKET FO R THE YEAR. II) THAT THE GROSS TURNOVER WAS WORKED OUT ON THE BASIS OF DUMB DOCUMENTS, WHICH DID NOT PERTAIN TO BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT AND EVEN THE AO HAS CONCL UDED IN HIS ORDER THAT NOTHING CAN BE DEDUCED COMPLETELY FROM THE IMPOUNDED DOCUMENTS. III) THAT ESTIMATION OF TOTAL INCOME WAS EVEN AGAINS T THE PRINCIPLE ON THE BASIS OF WHICH GOVT. OF HARYAN A FIXED LUMP SUM VAT TAX KEEPING IN VIEW THE CAPACITY OF THE BRICK KILN. IV) THAT ESTIMATION OF TURNOVER WAS BAD DUE TO APPLI CATION OF SAME SALE RATE FOR WHOLE OF THE YEAR IGNORING TH E FACT THAT SALE PRICE DEPENDS ON DEMAND AND SUPPLY AND TH E RATE OF BRICKS ARE EVEN FIXED BY THE STATE GOVERNME NT FOR SEVERAL PURPOSES. 5 8. THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE ERRED IN N OT ALLOWING DEDUCTION FOR SHORTAGE IN PRODUCTION AND SALE @ 15% AS ALLOWED IN CASES OF THE OTHER BRICK KILN IN THE LOC ALITY. 9. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE CHARGING OF INTEREST AS CONSEQUENTIAL WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT INTEREST IS NOT CHARGEABLE WHEN INCOME IS ESTIMATED ON PRESUMPTIVE BASIS U/S 44AD OR-ON BEST JUDGMENT. 10. THE ABOVE GROUNDS ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER. 11. THAT THE PETITIONER CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR RESCIND ANY GROUND OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE HEARING THE APPEA L. IN THESES CIRCUMSTANCE IT IS PRAYED THAT THE APPEAL MAY KINDLY BE ACCEPTED AS PRAYED FOR AND ALL THE ADDITI ONS MAY BE DELETED. 3. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL (ITA N O. 6591/DEL/2016) (AY 2012-13) READ AS UNDER:- 1. THAT LD. CIT(A) IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE HAS ERRED I N LAW IN UPHOLDING THE ESTIMATION OF INCOME FOR HANUMAN GRAM UDYOG MANDAI DONE BY THE AO ON THE BASIS OF DUMB DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE NOT TAKEN INTO POSSESSION FROM THE ASSESSEE AND WERE EVEN IMPOUNDED AGAINST LAW FROM A PERSON WHO WAS NOT AUTHORIZED AND NOT IN HIS PRESEN CE. 6 2. THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACT IN CONFIRMING INCOME FROM BRICK KILN HANUMAN G RAM UDYOG MANDAI OF APPELLANT WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE OR A NY MATERIAL AS THE AO COMPUTED THEE INCOME ARBITRARIL Y BY ESTIMATING THE SAME WITHOUT CONFRONTING THE MATERIA L FOR SUCH ESTIMATE IGNORING THE PRINCIPLES APPLIED IN BE ST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT & SECTION 44AD FOR ESTIMATING T HE PRODUCTION AND PRICE OF BRICKS. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE AO AGAINST FACTS AND WITHOUT ANY BASIS OR EVIDE NCE MADE THE ALLEGED COMPUTATION AND OBTAINED THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE APPELLANT WHICH IS AGAINST LAW AN D FACTS AND NOT ADMISSIBLE, AS ANY ADMISSION OF THE APPELLANT WHICH IS AGAINST FACTS IS NOT BINDING ON THE APPELLANT. THE ADMISSION BEING AGAINST FACTS AND NOT SUPPORTED WITH ANY MATERIAL IS LIABLE TO BE IGNORED IN LAW AND THEREFORE, THE ADDITION OF INCOME BASED ON THE SAME IS ALSO LIABLE TO BE CANCELLED. 4. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO ERRED IN CONSIDERING T HE ALLEGED COMPUTATION FOR ESTIMATION ON THE BASIS OF ACCEPTANCE, SINCE THE APPELLANT HAD DISPUTED THE SA ME COMPUTATION FOR EXCESSIVE TURNOVER AND HIGH RATE OF PROFIT, WITH REASONS IN HER PETITION U/S 144 BEFORE THE JCIT, BHIWANI ON 28/03/2015. 7 5. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ORDER IS ALSO BAD IN LAW BECAUSE NO DATE OF HEARING WAS FIXED AFTER 28/03/2015 FOR CONFRONTING THE COMPUTATI ON OF NET PROFIT AS PROMISED BEFORE THE JCIT ON 28/03/2 015 AND THE AO PASSED THE PREDETERMINED AND BIASED ORDE R WITHOUT PROVIDING FULL AND FAIR OPPORTUNITY AFTER RECALCULATION. THEREFORE, THE ESTIMATION IS ARBITRAR Y AND AGAINST PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 6. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE COMPUTATION OF THE INCOME ESTIMATION, WITHOUT ANY BASIS, IGNORING THE PRINCIPLE OF BEST JUDGMENT METHOD AND THE INCOME SHOULD HAVE BEEN ESTIMATED BY APPLYING NET R ATE OF PROFIT @ 8% AS PROVIDED U/S 44AD AS IS APPLIED I N NO BOOKS CASE AND ALSO DONE IN THE CASES OF OTHER BRIC K KILN IN THE LOCALITY. 7. WITHOUT PREJUDICE EVEN ON MERITS THE MODE OF COMPUTATION OF THE INCOME, CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A ), IS BAD IN LAW AND AGAINST FACTS ON THE FOLLOWING REASO NS: I) THAT THE SALE PRICE APPLIED TO DIFFERENT QUALITY OF THE BRICKS IS QUITE EXCESSIVE, ARBITRARY AND AGAINS T THE FACTS AND IGNORING THE RATES OF THE LOCAL MARKET FO R THE YEAR. II) THAT THE GROSS TURNOVER WAS WORKED OUT ON THE BASIS OF DUMB DOCUMENTS, WHICH DID NOT PERTAIN TO 8 BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT AND EVEN THE AO HAS CONCL UDED IN HIS ORDER THAT NOTHING CAN BE DEDUCED COMPLETELY FROM THE IMPOUNDED DOCUMENTS. III) THAT ESTIMATION OF TOTAL INCOME WAS EVEN AGAINS T THE PRINCIPLE ON THE BASIS OF WHICH GOVT. OF HARYAN A FIXED LUMP SUM VAT TAX KEEPING IN VIEW THE CAPACITY OF THE BRICK KILN. IV) THAT ESTIMATION OF TURNOVER WAS BAD DUE TO APPLI CATION OF SAME SALE RATE FOR WHOLE OF THE YEAR IGNORING TH E FACT THAT SALE PRICE DEPENDS ON DEMAND AND SUPPLY AND TH E RATE OF BRICKS ARE EVEN FIXED BY THE STATE GOVERNME NT FOR SEVERAL PURPOSES. 8. THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE ERRED IN N OT ALLOWING DEDUCTION FOR SHORTAGE IN PRODUCTION AND SALE @ 15% AS ALLOWED IN CASES OF THE OTHER BRICK KILN IN THE LOC ALITY. 9. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE CHARGING OF INTEREST AS CONSEQUENTIAL WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT INTEREST IS NOT CHARGEABLE WHEN INCOME IS ESTIMATED ON PRESUMPTIVE BASIS U/S 44AD OR-ON BEST JUDGMENT. 10. THE ABOVE GROUNDS ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER. 11. THAT THE PETITIONER CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR RESCIND ANY GROUND OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE HEARING THE APPEA L. 9 IN THESES CIRCUMSTANCE IT IS PRAYED THAT THE APPEAL MAY KINDLY BE ACCEPTED AS PRAYED FOR AND ALL THE ADDITI ONS MAY BE DELETED. 4. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE FIL ED THE E-RETURN DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS. 19,61,850/- ON 30.9.2012 WHICH WAS PROCE SSED U/S. 143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED THE ACT). S UBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR COMPULSORY SCRUTINY. STATUTORY NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 DATED 12.9.2013 WAS ISSUED AND SERVED UPO N THE ASSESSEE FOR COMPLIANCE BY 27.9.2013. IN THIS CASE A SURVEY U/S . 133A OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED ON 21.3.2012 AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF TH E ASSESSEE AND DURING THE SURVEY OPERATION INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND AND IMPOUNDED. IN THE RETURN OF INCOME ALL THE COLUMNS OF THE BALANCE SHEET AS WELL AS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT ARE DULY FILLED. GROSS RECEIPTS HAS BEEN SHOWN AT RS. 2,45,89,692/- FROM WHERE NET PROFIT OF RS. 20,07,977/- HAVE BEEN DECLARED. IN RESPONSE TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE ISSUED ON 3.7.2014, THE ASSESSEE FILED A WRITTEN REP LY ON 17.7.2014. ON 26.2.2015 THE DETAILED LETTER WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE REQUIR ING HIM TO ANSWER THE VARIOUS QUERIES AND EXPLANATION DOCUMENTS FOUND AT HIS BUSI NESS PREMISES. THE ASSESSEE HAS CERTAINLY CARRIED THE BUSINESS OF BRICK KILN A ND THE INCOME HAS TO BE WORKED OUT ON THE BASIS OF IMPOUNDED DOCUMENTS. EVEN IF THE IN COME OF THE FULL YEAR CANNOT BE DEDUCED EXACTLY FROM THESE DOCUMENTS. THEREAFTER, T HE NP IN THE BRICK KILN CASES OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, 2011-12 AND 2012-13 HAS BEEN WORKED OUT BY APPLYING THE N.P. RATE FROM 12% TO 14% AND ON THESE BASIS, THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RECOMPUTED AT AN ASSESSE D INCOME OF RS. 34,89,690/- VIDE ORDER DATED 30.3.2015 PASSED U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT. AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, ASSESSEE APPEALED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO VIDE HIS IMPUGNED ORDER 10 DATED 24.10.2016 HAS OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE RATE OF PROFIT APPLIED BY THE AO AND HAS SOUGHT DIRECTIONS FROM JCIT U/S. 144A OF THE ACT. THE JCIT HAS DIRECTED ADOPTION OF NP RATE @12% TO 14% AND AO HAS APPLIED THE SAID NET PROFIT RATE AND CALCULATED PROFIT OF THE A SSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF INCOME, WHICH THE LD.CIT(A) HAS CONFIR MED. WITH REGARD TO CALCULATION BY THE AI ON ACCOUNT OF WASTAGE ON ACCOU NTS OF WEATHER, RAINS ETC., THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DIRECTED THAT CALCULATION SHOULD BE MA DE @5% ADDITIONAL AMOUNT ON ACCOUNT OF WASTAGE FROM THE TOTAL TURNOVER OF THE A SSESSEE AND PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED WITH THE LD. CIT(A) S ORDER, ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED P.BOOK HAVING PAGES 1- 40 IN WHICH THE A.R. HAS ATTACHED THE COPY OF NOTI CE U/S. 142(1) DT. 21.12.12; COPY OF REPLY DATED 15.1.13 OF NOTICE U/S.142(1); COPY OF ITR, COMPUTATION, BALANCE SHEET AND TRADING AND P&L ACCOUNT OF SHAKUNTLA LAMBA FILED FOR AY 2012-13; COPY OF AUDIT REPORT ALONGWITH BALANCE SHEET AND TRADING AN D PROFIT AND LOSS A/C FOR 2012- 13; COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 28.3.15 TO JCIT U/S. 144A WITH REASONS REGARDING EXCESSIVE AND ARBITRARY ASSESSMENT BY AO; COPY OF D IRECTIONS ISSUED BY JCIT TO AO U/S. 144 DT. 28.3.15; COPY OF INVENTORY AND RATES REC ORDED AT THAKAR DASS BHATTA UDYOG,DURJANPUR DURING SURVEY OPERATION U/S.133(A) D ATED 21.3.12; COPY OF ANNEXURE SHOWING EXCESSIVE ESTIMATION OF TURNOVER A ND INCOME WITH COPY OF BILLS AS SUBMITTED TO CIT(A); COPY OF DOCUMENT QUERIED BY AO S HOWING ACTUAL PRODUCTION DURING THE YEAR. HE FURTHER STATED THAT CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING INCOME FROM BRICK KILN HANUMAN GRAM UDYOG MANDAL OF APPELLANT W ITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE OR ANY MATERIAL AS THE AO COMPUTED THE INCOME ARBITRARILY BY ESTIMATING, THE SAME WITHOUT CONFRONTING THE MATERIAL FOR SUCH ESTIMATE IGNORING THE PRINCIPLES APPLIED IN BEST 11 JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT AND SECTION 44AD FOR ESTIMATIN G THE PRODUCTION AND PRICE OF BRICKS. HE FURTHER STATED THAT LD. CIT(A), HAS WRONGL Y COMPUTED THE INCOME BY ESTIMATION, WITHOUT ANY BASIS, IGNORING THE PRINCIP LE OF BEST JUDGMENT METHOD AND THE INCOME SHOULD HAVE BEEN ESTIMATED BY APPLYING N ET RATE OF PROFIT @8% AS PROVIDED U/S. 44AD AS IS APPLIED IN NO BOOKS CASE A ND ALSO DINE IN THE CASES OF OTHER BRICK KILN IN THE LOCALITY. IN SUPPORT OF THI S CONTENTION, ON IDENTICAL AND SIMILAR FACTS, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A COP Y OF THE LD. CIT(A), ROHTAKS ORDER DATED 27.12.2116 I.E. IN THE CASE OF SATYA PAL SINGH PROP. M/S SINGLA BRICK COMPANY, MILKPUR, TEHSIL BAWANI KHERA, DISTT. BHIWA NI-127032 WHEREIN THE LD. CIT(A) HAS INCLINED TO ACCEPT THE PLEA OF THE ASSESS EE TO ESTIMATE THE GP @8% AND DIRECTED THE AO COMPUTE THE INCOME AT THE SAID RATE . 6. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 7. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RE CORDS, ESPECIALLY THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS WELL AS THE PAPER BOOK. I FIND THA T LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE INCOME FROM BRICK KILN HANUMAN GRAM UDYOG MANDAL OF ASSESSEE WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE OR ANY MATERIAL AS THE AO COMPUTED THE INC OME ARBITRARILY BY ESTIMATING, THE SAME WITHOUT CONFRONTING THE MATERIAL FOR SUCH ESTIMATE IGNORING THE PRINCIPLES APPLIED IN BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT AND SECTION 44A D FOR ESTIMATING THE PRODUCTION AND PRICE OF BRICKS. I FURTHER NOTE THAT THE COMPUTATION THE INCOME BY ESTIMATION, WITHOUT ANY BASIS, IGNORING THE PRINCIP LE OF BEST JUDGMENT METHOD, WHICH IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION SHOULD HAVE BEEN ES TIMATED BY APPLYING NET RATE OF PROFIT @8% AS PROVIDED U/S. 44AD AS IS APPLIED I N NO BOOKS CASE AND ALSO DONE IN THE CASES OF OTHER BRICK KILN IN THE LOCALITY. I FURTHER FIND THAT ON SIMILAR AND IDENTICAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES I.E. IN THE CASE OF SATYA PAL SINGH PROP. M/S 12 SINGLA BRICK COMPANY, MILKPUR, TEHSIL BAWANI KHERA, DISTT. BHIWANI-127032 LD. CIT(A), ROHTAK VIDE ORDER DATED 27.12.2016 HAS INCLI NED TO ACCEPT THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE TO ESTIMATE THE GP @8% AND DIRECTED THE AO COMPUTE THE INCOME AT THE SAID RATE. 7.1 KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS EXPLAINED ABOVE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE NET PROFIT @8 % IS QUITE REASONABLE AND GENUINE, BECAUSE LD. DR COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY C ONTRARY ORDER OF THE HIGHER COURT. THEREFORE, I ACCEPT THE NET PROFIT RATE @8% FOR COMPUTATION OF INCOME AND ACCORDINGLY, CANCEL THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES B ELOW ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE. 8. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE DIFF ERENT ASSESSEES STAND ALLOWED IN THE AFORESAID MANNER. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 08/08/2017. SD/ SD/ SD/ SD/- -- - [ [[ [H.S. SIDHU H.S. SIDHU H.S. SIDHU H.S. SIDHU] ]] ] JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE:-08/08/2017 SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: - -- - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES 13