SHRI RAJKUMAR DAMMANI, RAIPUR (CG) V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER -1(1), RAIPUR (CG)

ITA 90/BIL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7308 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 25-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 131

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.90/RPR/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 RAJKUMAR DAMMANI, SHOP NO.4, DAMMANI COMPLEX, MAIN ROAD, RAMSAGAR PARA, RAIPUR (CG). VS. ITO, WARD- 1(1), RAIPUR (CG). PAN : AFPPD8488M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SUNIL KR. AGRAWAL, CA. MS. LAXMI SHARMA, CA DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI SANJAY KUMAR, DR DATE OF HEARING : 17-08-2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01-10-2018 O R D E R PER R. K. PANDA, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER DATED 24.02.2016 OF THE LD. CIT(A)- 1, RAIPUR (CG) RELATI NG TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. GROUNDS OF APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE READ AS UNDER :- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN TREATING THE UNDISCLOSED BANK TRANSACTIONS AS TRADING TRANSACTIONS OF ITS REGULAR COURSE OF BUSINESS, WH ILE THE ASSESSEE HAS ACTUALLY DONE THE CHEQUE DISCOUNTING BUSINESS AND HE HAS ONLY E ARNED COMMISSION INCOME FROM SUCH UNDISCLOSED BANK TRANSACTIONS. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ESTIMATED ADDITI ON MADE BY THE LD. A.O. OF RS.87,78,850/- BY SUSTAINING THE NP RATE OF 3% OF T OTAL UNDISCLOSED BANK TRANSACTIONS, WITHOUT GIVING ANY BASIS FOR SUCH ARBITRARY ESTIMAT ION MADE BY THE LD. A.O. 2 ITA NO.90/RPR/2016 3. THAT THE ASSESSEE CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, URGE, ALT ER, MODIFY AND WITHDRAW ANY GROUND/GROUNDS BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FILED THE REVISED/AMENDED GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1 WHICH READS A S UNDER :- ON THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE & IN LAW , THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. A.O. OF APPLYING PROFI T RATE OF 3% ON THE ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED BANK TRANSACTIONS (I.E. OF RS.29.26 CRO RES) OF CHEQUE DISCOUNTING BUSINESS, INSTEAD RATE OF 0.25% (I.E. RS.2,20,000 ON JILA SAHAKARI BANK A/C) & 0.33% (I.E. RS.6,70,000 ON SBI A/C) AS SURRENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 131 BEFORE THE LD. A.O. BY GIVING AFFIDAVITS IN THIS RESPECT, MORE S O, BOTH THE AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT MENTIONED ANY LEGAL/ADMISSIBLE BASIS OR ANY REFEREN CE FOR MAKING SUCH ARBITRARY, WILD ESTIMATION, HENCE, RS.8,90,000 (I.E. 0.30%) MA Y KINDLY BE ACCEPTED AND RS.78.88 LAKSH MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. 4. REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF NTPC LTD. REPORTED IN 229 ITR 383, HE SUBMITTED THAT THI S AMENDED GROUND SHOULD BE ADMITTED. 5. AFTER HEARING BOTH SIDES AND FOLLOWING THE DECIS ION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF NTPC LTD. (SUPRA) THE AMENDED GROUND IS ADMITTED. 6. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND DERIVES INCOME FROM TRADING OF FOOD GRAINS AND CATT LE FEED UNDER THE PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERNS OF M/S MAHAMAYA INDUSTRIES & M/S MAHAMAYA RICE DAL & FLOUR MILL. HE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 31.03.2012 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.8,47,210/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS AND STATUTORY NOTICES WERE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON TH E BASIS OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE FILED VARIOUS REPLIES. ON THE BASIS OF ENQUIRIES C ONDUCTED BY THE ASSESSING 3 ITA NO.90/RPR/2016 OFFICER, INFORMATION WAS OBTAINED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MAINTAINED TWO BANK ACCOUNTS WITH JILA SAHKARI BANK, CURRENT A/C NO.393 56 AND WITH STATE BANK OF INDIA, CURRENT A/C NO.30483331697 WHICH WERE NOT SH OWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, ISSUED SUMMONS U/S 131 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 AND RECORDED THE STATEMENT OF TH E ASSESSEE WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE TRANSACTIONS OCCURRED IN T HESE BANK ACCOUNTS ARE RELATED TO THE COMMISSION INCOME AND MISTAKENLY DUE TO THE FAULT OF THE PREVIOUS ACCOUNTANT IT REMAINED TO BE DISCLOSED IN THE BALAN CE SHEET. IT WAS FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE TRANSACTIONS RELATED TO THE SAID BA NK ACCOUNT ARE NOT PART OF THE SALE OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESS EE ONLY EARNS COMMISSION ON THESE TRANSACTIONS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED AF FIDAVITS AND REPLIES BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER STATING THEREIN THAT IT EARNS COM MISSION INCOME WHICH VARIES FROM 0.20% TO 0.30% OF THE TRANSACTIONS APPEARING I N THE BANK ACCOUNTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FROM TIME TO TIME, MADE ADDITION OF RS.87,78,850/- TO TH E TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY ESTIMATING THE NET PROFIT @ 3% OF SUCH TRANSACTI ON (I.E. RS.29,26,28,223/-) APPEARING IN THE TWO BANK ACCOUNTS ASSUMING IT AS U NVERIFIABLE SALES OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE MADE ELABORA TE SUBMISSION CHALLENGING THE ESTIMATION OF INCOME @ 3% OF SUCH T RANSACTION. HOWEVER, THE 4 ITA NO.90/RPR/2016 LD. CIT(A) REJECTED SUCH CLAIM AND UPHELD THE ACTIO N OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- 2.3 THIS IS A CASE OF UNEARTHING OF UNDISCLOSED BA NK ACCOUNT OPERATED BY THE APPELLANT WITH ACCOUNT NO. CA 39356 WITH JILLA SAHA KARI BANK, COD BRANCH AND ACCOUNT NO. CA-30483331697 WITH THE STATE BANK OF I NDIA, AND VERIFYING THE TRANSACTIONS CARRIED THROUGH THESE ACCOUNTS. THE AP PELLANT CLAIMED THAT TRANSACTIONS IN THE SAID ACCOUNTS WERE RELATED TO HIS ACTIVITIES AS COMMISSION AGENT AND HE HAD OFFERED THREE PERCENT OF THE TRANSACTION AS HIS INC OME. THIS CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT WAS DEMOLISHED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS CAN BE SEEN IN PARA-2.1 ABOVE. THE APPELLANT CLAIMS THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT DID NOT INCLUDE THESE TWO ACCOUNTS, BUT THE TRANSACTIONS OF TRADING IN RICE CARRIED OUT THR OUGH THESE BANK ACCOUNTS WERE GENUINE WHICH HE CARRIED OUT AS COMMISSION AGENT AN D EARNED INCOME OF RS.6,70,000/- IN FY 2010-11, RS. 6,31,628/- IN FY 2 011-12 AND RS.7,17,415/- IN FY 2012-13. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ENQUIRES U/S 13 3(6) FROM THE SECOND PARTIES TO THESE TRANSACTIONS AND ESTABLISHED THAT THE PERPORT ED TRANSACTIONS NEVER HAPPENED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEN MADE ENQUIRIES FROM TRAN SPORT AUTHORITIES TO BRING ON RECORD THE FACTS THAT THE VEHICLES PERPORTEDLY USED BY THE APPELLANT WERE NEVER USED. IN MANY CASES VEHICLES DID NOT AT ALL EXISTS. IN OT HER CASES THE VEHICLE NUMBERS PROVIDED BY THE APPELLANT WERE CARS AND OTHER NON T RANSPORTING VEHICLES. MANY OF THE VEHICLE OWNERS HAVE STATED THAT THEY DID NOT TRANSP ORT ANY GOODS AS ALLEGED BY THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED THAT THE ASSES SING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN TREATING THE TRANSACTION AS APPELLANT'S TRADING ACTIVITIES A ND TAKING THREE PERCENT OF TOTAL TRANSACTION AS HIS INCOME. THE APPELLANT CLAIMED TH AT HE WAS MERE COMMISSION AGENT, AND SELLER AS WELL AS BUYERS WERE OTHER PARTIES. HE CONTENDED THAT THE TRANSACTIONS COULD NOT BE CONFIRMED IN THE ENQUIRY OF THE ASSESS ING OFFICER BECAUSE THE TRANSACTIONS WERE MADE THROUGH BROKERS. SUCH A CONTENTION HAS MA NY LOOPHOLES. EVEN IF IT IS PRESUMED THAT THE APPELLANT WAS A COMMISSION AGENT, HE SHOULD BE ABLE TO PRODUCE THE BUYER AND SELLER OF EACH TRANSACTIONS. HE EVEN COULD NOT PRODUCE THE BROKERS THROUGH WHICH THE SALES AND PURCHASES WERE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT. FOR THIS HE GAVE ALIBI THAT THE COMMISSION BOOK WAS LOS T AND POLICE STATION WAS INFORMED ON 01/01/2013. IT MAY BE NOTED THAT THE SCRUTINY NO TICE WAS ISSUED ON 10/09/2012 AND THE ASSESSMENT RELATED TO FY 2010-11 THE APPELLANT CLAIMED TO KNOW OF THESE FACT MUCH AFTER THE CLOSE OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR, AFTER T HE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED AND NOTICE OF SCRUTINY WAS ISSUED. IT SHOWS THAT THE ST ORY OF COMMISSION BOOK BEING LOST IS AN AFTERTHOUGHT TO DUPE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. EVEN IF THE TRANSACTION IS CARRIED THROUGH BROKERS THERE SHOULD NOT BE A REASON THAT T HE VEHICLE NUMBERS SHOWN FOR TRANSPORTATION OF GOODS WILL BE BOGUS. AS PER THE D ETAILS FURNISHED BY HIM, THE VEHICLES USED WERE OPEN BODY TRUCK (FOR EG CG 04 JD 3551 AND MANY OTHERS), MULTI EXEL TAILOR (FOR EG CG 04 JC 2955 AND MANY OTHERS), 120 CAR (CG 07 N9477). MANY VEHICLES WERE NOT EVEN REGISTERED ON THE DATE OF TR ANSACTIONS. ALL THESE FACTS SHOW THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS CANNOT BE RELIED UPON. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY ESTIMATING PROFIT OF BUSINESS IS JUSTIFIED WHICH IS HEREBY SUSTAINED AND THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT ARE REJECTED . 5 ITA NO.90/RPR/2016 8. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 9. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, AT THE OUTSET, SUBMITTED THAT IT IS A FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED THE TWO BANK AC COUNTS MENTIONED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. HOWEVER , IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED ONLY COMMISSION INCOME FROM SUC H TRANSACTIONS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN THE INSTAN T CASE, HAS ESTIMATED THE COMMISSION INCOME AT 3% WHICH HAS BEEN UPHELD BY TH E LD. CIT(A). HOWEVER, SUCH COMMISSION INCOME CANNOT EXCEED 0.20%. REFERR ING TO THE DECISION OF THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. AL EMBIC SECURITIES PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT VIDE ITA NO.243 TO 245/MUM/2013 ORDER DATE D 30.09.2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07, 2010-11 & 2009-10 RESPECT IVELY, HE SUBMITTED THAT UNDER IDENTICAL CIRCUMSTANCES THE TRIBUNAL UPHELD T HE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND ESTIMATED THE PROFIT RATE 0.15% AS AGAINST PROF IT RATE OF 0.20% ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 10. REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF THE MUMBAI BENCH O F THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. M/S. CHAITALI SALES AGENCY PVT. LTD. VI DE ITA NO.4908 & 4910/MUM/2016 ORDER DATED 17.05.2017 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 & 2011- 12 RESPECTIVELY, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN THE SAID DECISIONS HAS UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN RESTRICTING THE PROF IT UNDER IDENTICAL CIRCUMSTANCES AT 0.15% AS AGAINST 4% ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER. 6 ITA NO.90/RPR/2016 11. REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF THE AHMEDABAD BENC H OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI ROHIT PRAVINDHANDRA PANWALA VS. ACIT V IDE IT(SS)A NO.608 TO 612/AHD/2010 ORDER DATED 31.05.2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02 TO 2005-06, HE SUBMITTED THAT UNDER IDENTICAL CIRCUMSTANCES, TH E TRIBUNAL HAS DIRECTED FOR ADOPTION OF 0.125% NET PROFIT IN CHEQUES/DRAFT DISC OUNTING. 12. REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF THE MUMBAI BENCH O F THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF GOLD STAR FINVEST (P.) LTD. VS. ITO REPORTED IN 57 SOT 409, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN THE SAID DECISION HAS HELD THAT WHE RE THE ASSESSEE, A SHARE BROKER, EARNED COMMISSION ON PROVIDING ACCOMMODATIO N ENTRIES TO ITS CUSTOMERS, IT WAS ONLY SAID COMMISSION WHICH COULD BE ADDED TO ASSESSEES TAXABLE INCOME AND NOT ENTIRE AMOUNT REPRESENTING V ALUE OF TRANSACTION. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE, IN THE INSTANT CASE, H AS ALREADY OFFERED AN AMOUNT OF RS.8,90,000/- AS ADDITIONAL INCOME DURING THE COURS E OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLO SED BANK TRANSACTION OF RS.29.26 CRORES WHICH COME TO 0.3% OF SUCH TRANSACT ION. THEREFORE, SUCH INCOME DISCLOSED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATIO N BEING MORE THAN THE PROFIT DETERMINED IN SUCH TYPE CASES, THEREFORE, THE SAME SHOULD BE ACCEPTED AND NO FURTHER ADDITION IS CALLED FOR. HE ACCORDINGLY SUB MITTED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY OFFERED 0.30% ON SUCH UNDISCLOSED TRANS ACTION, THEREFORE, NO FURTHER ADDITION IS CALLED FOR. HE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED T HAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) BE SET-ASIDE ON THIS ISSUE. 7 ITA NO.90/RPR/2016 13. THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LD. CIT(A). HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE INSTANT CASE HAS NOT DISCLOSED SUCH BANK ACCOUNTS I N THE BALANCE SHEET. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS VERY REASONABLY ESTIMATED SUC H PROFIT AT 3% OF THE TRANSACTION WHICH HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE LD. CIT(A) . HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS A SPEAKING ORDER AND, TH EREFORE, THE SAME SHOULD BE UPHELD. 14. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THE ASSESSEE IN THE INSTANT CASE HAS NOT DISCLOSED THE TWO BANK ACCOUNTS IN THE BALANCE SHEET AND THE TRANSACTIONS THAT HAS BEEN CARRIED OUT THROUGH THES E BANK ACCOUNTS AMOUNT TO RS.29,26,28,223/-. WE FIND THE ASSESSING OFFICER R EJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT HAD RECEIVED COMMISSION INCOME ONL Y ON CHEQUE/BILL DISCOUNTING WHICH IS ABOUT 0.20% TO 0.30% OF THE TR ANSACTIONS MADE ADDITION OF RS.87,78,850/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY ESTIMATING THE PROFIT AT 3% ON SUCH TRANSACTION APPEARING IN THE ABOVE TWO UNDI SCLOSED BANK ACCOUNTS. IT MAY BE PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD OFFERED 0.30% COMMISSION INCOME AFTER DEDUCTING CERTAIN EXPENSES/COMMISSION EXPENSES TO SUB-BROKERS AND OTH ER INTERMEDIARIES INVOLVED IN THE CHEQUE DISCOUNTING BUSINESS WHICH W AS REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE FIND THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD T HE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING 8 ITA NO.90/RPR/2016 OFFICER, THE REASONS OF WHICH ARE ALREADY REPRODUCE D IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPH. IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE THAT IN CHEQUE/BILL DISCOUNTING BUSINESS THE PROFIT CANNOT EXCEED MORE THAN 0.30% AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY OFFERED SUCH PROFIT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THEREFORE, THE SAME SHOULD BE ACCEPTED AND NO FURTHER ADDITION IS CALLED FOR. IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. DR UND ER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER BY ESTIMATING THE PROFIT OF 3% WHICH HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE LD. CIT(A) SHOUL D BE UPHELD AND NO FURTHER RELIEF SHOULD BE GRANTED. 15. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ON PERUSAL OF THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DISCLOSED THE TRANSACTION REFLECTE D IN THE TWO BANK ACCOUNTS, THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE GIVEN IN THE EARLIER PARAG RAPH AND THE TOTAL TRANSACTIONS OF WHICH COMES TO RS.29.26 CRORES. WE FIND THE ASS ESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE OFFER OF 0.30% GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COU RSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND ESTIMATED THE INCOME FROM SUCH UNDI SCLOSED TRANSACTION ON ACCOUNT OF CHEQUE DISCOUNTING AT 3% OF THE TOTAL TR ANSACTIONS. ALTHOUGH, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CERTAIN DECISION S TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT THE PROFIT ELEMENT IN SUCH TYPE OF BUSINESS VARIES FROM 0.15% TO 0.25%, HOWEVER, THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS OFFERED PROFI T OF 0.30% BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH WAS REJECTED BY HIM WHO EST IMATED SUCH INCOME AT 3%. 9 ITA NO.90/RPR/2016 THEREFORE, THE QUESTION IS THAT WHAT PERCENTAGE SHO ULD BE ADOPTED FOR SUCH TRANSACTIONS WHICH REMAIN UNDISCLOSED TO THE DEPART MENT IN THE INSTANT CASE. THE OFFER BY THE ASSESSEE APPEARS TO BE TOO LOW AND PROFIT ESTIMATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO APPEARS TO BE ON THE HIGHER SIDE IF WE CONSIDER SUCH RATE OF PROFIT IN THE LIGHT OF THE VARIOUS DECISIONS CIT ED BEFORE US. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACT, ADOPTION OF 0.5% AS NET PROFI T ON SUCH UNDISCLOSED TRANSACTIONS OUTSIDE THE BOOKS, IN OUR OPINION, WIL L MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. WE HOLD AND DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ACCORDINGLY PARTLY ALLOWED. 16. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 01 ST OCTOBER, 2018. SD/- SD/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) (R. K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 01-10-2018. SUJEET COPY OF ORDER TO: - 1) THE APPELLANT 2) THE RESPONDENT 3) THE CIT 4) THE CIT(A) 5) THE DR, I.T.A.T., RAIPUR. BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, RAIPUR