Santro Tiles Ltd., Sabarkantha V. The Income tax Officer,S.K.Ward-1, Himatnagar

ITA 907/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6164 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 18-04-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 03-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Gross profit estimation; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 145

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 907/AHD/2013 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-2010 SANTRO TILES LTD, AT & PO DALPUR, NATIONAL HIGHWAY NO.8, TAL. PRANTIJ, DIST. SABARKANTHA PAN : AAHCS 3818 C VS THE ITO, S.K. WARD-1, HIMATNAGAR / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI TUSHAR P. HEMANI, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI K. MADHUSUDAN, SR DR / DATE OF HEARING : 18/04/2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 20/04/2017 / O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :- THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-VIII, AHMEDABA D DATED 31.01.2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10.. 2. THE VARIOUS GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READ AS UNDER:- 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF AO IN REJECTING BOOKS OF A CCOUNTS U/S 145 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE F ACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.52,71,055/- MADE ON A CCOUNT OF LOW GP CONSEQUENT TO ESTIMATION OF GP @ 20.66 % AS AGAINST THE GP @ 18.18% SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT. 3. LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT ALLOWING THE SET OFF OF GROSS PROFIT ADDITION SO CONFIRMED AGAINST ADDITION OF CASH CREDIT CONFIRMED BY HIM. LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE GRANTED BENEFIT OF TELESCOPING BETWEEN THESE TWO ADDITIONS. ITA NO. 907/AHD/2013 SANTRO TILES LTD VS. ITO AY : 2009-10 2 4. BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE PASSED THE ORDER S WITHOUT PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE FACT AND THAT THEY FURTHER ERRED I N GROSSLY IGNORING VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS, EXPLANATIONS AND INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT FROM TIME TO TIME WHICH OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BE FORE PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THIS ACTION OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIE S IS IN CLEAR BREACH OF LAW AND PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND THEREFORE DES ERVES TO BE QUASHED. 5. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING ACTION OF THE LD. AO IN LEVYING INTEREST U/S 234A/B /C OF THE ACT. 6. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING ACTION OF THE LD. AO IN INITIATING PENAL TY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 3. IN THIS CASE, THE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING I NCOME OF RS.19,08,303/- WAS FILED ON 29.09.2009. THEREAFTER, THE CASE WAS S ELECTED UNDER SECURITY BY ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT 28.0 7.2010. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE DISCUSSED UNDER THE GROUND OF APPEAL DEALT HERE AS UNDER:- GROUND NOS. 1 & 2 4. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE RE IS FALL IN THE GROSS PROFIT COMPARED TO THE LAST YEAR. 5. APROPOS FIRST GROUND RELATING TO REJECTION OF BO OKS OF ACCOUNTS WHILE MAKING ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF LOW GROSS PROFIT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED AT THE TIME OF E VERIFICATION OF EXPENSES CLAIMED UNDER VARIOUS HEADS THAT SOME OF THE VOUCHERS WERE HANDMADE, AND FEW OF THEM WERE WITHOUT SERIAL NUMBER AND DATE AND WITH REGARD TO S OME BILLS, ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO GIVE SATISFACTORY AND JUSTIFIABLE REASO N FOR CLAIMING THE EXPENSES. FURTHER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ON VERIFICATION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE, OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT MAINTA INING DAY-TO-DAY REGISTERS OF STOCK, RAW MATERIALS, STORES AND CHEMI CALS USED IN THE ITA NO. 907/AHD/2013 SANTRO TILES LTD VS. ITO AY : 2009-10 3 PRODUCTION PROCESS. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO PROVE THE GENUINE NESS OF UTILIZATION OF STOCK, MATERIALS, STORES, CHEMICALS ETC. AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, AND THUS THE ASSESSING OFFICER H ELD THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT RELIABLE AS THE S AME WAS NOT SHOWING THE CORRECT PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS; THEREFORE, THE BOO K OF ACCOUNTS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE REJE CTED UNDER SECTION 145 OF THE ACT, AS THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT JUSTIFY ITS CLAI M REGARDING UTILIZATION OF STOCK AND MATERIALS IN THE PRODUCTION PROCESS. 6. APROPOS GROUND NO.2 REGARDING THE ADDITION OF RS .52,71,055/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF LOW GP, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXPENSES UND ER VARIOUS HEAD LIKE POWER & FUEL ELECTRICITY, STORES CHEMICALS & PACKIN G, RAW-MATERIALS CONSUMED, SALARIES ETC. ON COMPARISON OF THESE EXP ENSES WITH THE LAST YEARS FIGURES, HE NOTICED THAT THERE WAS SUBSTANTI AL INCREASE IN EXPENSES CLAIMED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE A SSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE EXPLANATION THEREOF, ALO NG WITH LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THOSE EXPENSES ALONG WITH ALL BILLS/VOUCHERS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED HIS EXPLANATION WHICH MENTIONED AT PAGE NO.5 TO 8 OF TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE INCREASE IN EXPENSES D UE TO INCREASED COST OF RAW MATERIALS, COST OF TRANSPORTATION, COST OF LABO UR ETC AND FURTHER STATED THAT THE TURNOVER OF CURRENT YEAR WAS INCREASED BY MORE THAN 43.16% OF LAST YEAR, BECAUSE OF WHICH THERE WAS ALSO INCREASE IN T HE EXPENDITURE TOO. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND HE CALCULATED THE GP OF THE LAST THREE YEARS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AND WORKED OUT THE AVERAGE GP OF THE ASSESSEE AT 20.66% AGAINS T THE GP @ 18.18% SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER APPLI ED THE AVERAGE GP RATE OF 20.66% AS AGAINST 18.18% SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AND MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.52,71,055/- IN THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF LOW GP. ITA NO. 907/AHD/2013 SANTRO TILES LTD VS. ITO AY : 2009-10 4 7. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) BUT WITHOUT SUCCESS. LD. CIT(A) HAS SUSTAINED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, BY OBS ERVING AS UNDER:- 2.4 AFTER GOING THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE, IT IS SEEN THAT AO HAS POINTED MANY DEFECTS/DISCREPANCIES IN THE BOOKS OF THE ACCO UNTS OF THE APPELLANT. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING AND TRADING OF GLAZED TILES. THE SALE, GROSS AND NET PROFIT SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND EARLIER 4 YEARS ARE REPRODU CED AS UNDER: ASST.YEAR TURNOVER GROSS PROFIT % NET PROFIT % 2006-07 86513683 16422886 18.98 1029052 1.19 2007-08 84242986 18867757 22.40 2682130 3.18 2008-09 120779052 26663992 22.08 3913744 3.24 2009-10 212498549 38631145 18.18 2305953 1.09 THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT THE GROSS PROFIT RATE AS COMPARED TO LAST YEAR IS LESS BY 2.15% DUE TO INCREASE IN COST OF RAW MATERI ALS, TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES AND VARIOUS MANUFACTURING EXPENSES ETC. TH IS PLEA OF THE APPELLANT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AS THE SELLING PRICE PER BOX DURI NG THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS RS.220/- PER BOX AS COMPARED TO RS.130/- PER BOX LAST YEAR. THEREFORE, THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT DO ES NOT CARRY ANY WEIGHT. 2.5. FROM MONTH TO MONTH OF THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL; IT IS OBSERVED THAT THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL VARIATION IN CONSUMPTION OF FUEL VIS -A-VIS PRODUCTION. THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THAT IT HAS USED RING GAS F OR KILN FIRE AND FOR THE YEAR CONSUMPTION OF FUEL 2504773 SCM OF COMPARE TO PREVIOUS YEAR 1814729 SCM. COST OF FUEL WAS INCREASED @ RS.2.47/- PER SCM COMPARE TO PREVIOUS YEAR RATE OF RS.17.73/- PER SCM, THEREFORE COMPARATIVE TO PREVIOUS YEAR COST OF FUEL HAS INCREASED AND IT IS MAIN REAS ON FOR INCREASED IN EXPENSES. THE AO IS NOT FULLY SATISFIED WITH THIS EXPLANATION . THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO NOT PUT UP HIS POINT AS TO HOW THERE IS SUDDEN CHAN GE FROM THE LIQUID FUEL TO RING GAS FOR KILN FIRE AND FOR THE YEAR WHEREAS THE LIQUID FUEL WAS COST EFFECTIVE IN EARLIER YEAR AS IS REFLECTED FROM THE ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT. 2.6. THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THAT HE HAS MADE E XPENSES FOR PAYMENT TO EMPLOYEE OF RS.8045788/- WAS NOT EXCESSIVE BECAUSE OF IT HAS HIRE SKILLED EMPLOYEE FOR GOOD PRODUCTION AND MARKETING AND THER EFORE ASSESSEE HAS ACHIEVED 43.16% OF HIGHER TURNOVER COMPARE TO PREVI OUS YEAR. THE APPELLANT HAS GIVEN VERY GENERAL EXPLANATION REGARDING CONSUM ABLE STORES & SPARES ITA NO. 907/AHD/2013 SANTRO TILES LTD VS. ITO AY : 2009-10 5 AND PAYMENT TO EMPLOYEES INCLUDING LABOUR. THE PROC ESS IS SAME AND THE INCREASE IN LABOUR IS MORE THAN 100% INCREASE WHICH APPELLANT HAS NOT JUSTIFIED WITH ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES AND SO IS THE CASE WITH CONSUMABLE STORES & SPARES. THE APPELLANT HAS SHOWN ABNORMAL E XPENSES COMPARED TO EARLIER YEARS. THESE EXPENSES CANNOT BE SIMPLY EXPL AINED AS THE APPELLANT HAS STATED THAT MARKET CONDITION DEMANDED. THE EXPLANAT ION GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT IS NOT AT ALL CONVINCING AND AGAINST THE PRUDENCY OF THE MARKET IN THIS INDUSTRY. IT INDICATES TOWARDS THAT APPELLANT HAS INFLATED THE EXPENSES TO LOWER THE PROFIT DURING THE YEAR. 2.7. FROM ALL THE FACTS DISCUSSED ABOVE, IT IS APPA RENT THAT THE BOOK RESULTS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT SUBJECT TO PROPER VERIFICATION AND ARE NOT CONCLUSIVE AND THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 145(3) ARE CL EARLY APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE. THE APPELLANT HAS SHOWN ABNORMAL EXPENSES COMPARED TO EARLIER YEARS. THESE EXPENSES CANNOT BE SIMPLY EXPLAINED AS THE APPELLAN T HAS STATED THAT MARKET CONDITION DEMANDED. THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE AP PELLANT IS NOT AT ALL CONVINCING AND AGAINST THE PRUDENCY OF THE MARKET I N THIS INDUSTRY. IT INDICATES TOWARDS THAT APPELLANT HAS INFLATED THE E XPENSES TO LOWER THE PROFIT DURING THE YEAR. THE GROSS PROFIT RATE AS COMPARED TO LAST YEAR IS LESS BY 2.15% DUE TO INCREASE IN COST OF RAW MATERIALS, TRA NSPORTATION EXPENSES AND VARIOUS MANUFACTURING EXPENSES ETC.THIS PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AS THE SELLING PRICE PER BOX DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS RS.220/- PER BOX AS COMPARED TO RS.130/- PER BOX LA ST YEAR. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO SUBMITTED THE COMPARABLE PROFIT RATIO OF OTHER TILES MANUFACTURING COMPANIES. THIS COMPARISON IS NOT CONCLUSIVE AS EVE RY CASE HAS DIFFERENT SET OF FACTS AND SECONDLY, IN ALL THE COMPANY THERE IS NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGE OF PROFIT WHEREAS IN APPELLANT CASE THE FALL IS ALMOST 22% IN GROSS PROFIT AS COMPARED TO EARLIER YEAR. IT CAN BE SAID THAT EVEN IF REGULAR ADOPTION OF A METHOD OF ACCOUNTING IS THERE THE ANNUAL PROFITS CA NNOT PROPERLY BE DEDUCED FROM THE METHOD EMPLOYED AND THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT OMISSION TO SHOW THE CORRECT EXPENSES. THE AO HAS RIGHTLY REJECTED THE B OOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND REASONABLY ESTIMATED THE GROSS PROFIT OF THE ASSESS EE @20.66% BEING THE AVERAGE G.P RATE OF LAST 4YEARS, AS AGAINST G.P. RA TE OF 18.18% SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT. 2.8. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO CITED THE CASE LAWS IN THE CASE OF PANDIT BROS. VS. CIT (1954) 20 ITR 159, (PUNJ RAM KUMAR BENIPRASAD V S. ITO (1977) TAXATION 49 (6)-141, TRIMURTI SALT CO. VS. ITO (198 1) TAXATION 63(6)- 13, SHRI AMBIKAJI RICE MILLS VS. CIT (1990) 90 CTR (PAT ) 127, RAZA TEXTILES LTD. VS. CIT (1972) 86 ITR 673 (ALL), NARSINGHDAS R AMAKISHAN PUNGALIYA V/S. ACIT, 272 ITR 467 RAJASTHAN, SHRI AMBIKAJI RIC E MILLS VS. CIT (1990) 90 CTR (PAT) 127 AND OTHERS AS SUPRA. IN ALL THE CASES, THE HONABLE COURTS HAVE HELD THAT THE AO CANNOT REJECT THE BOOK S OF ACCOUNTS AND ESTIMATE THE GP MERELY BECAUSE THE PROFITS WERE LOW. IT WAS ALSO HELD IN THESE CASES THAT THE AO HAS TO ESTABLISH THE DEFECTS IN THE BOO KS OF ACCOUNTS. IN THE ITA NO. 907/AHD/2013 SANTRO TILES LTD VS. ITO AY : 2009-10 6 APPELLANT CASE THE AO HAS ESTABLISHED THAT HOW THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE NOT RELIABLE AS DISCUSSED SUPRA. IN THE CASE OF DHAKESH WARI COTTON MILLS LTD. V/S. CIT 26 ITR 775 (SC) THE COURT HAS HELD THAT AS SESSING OFFICER CANNOT ACT ON PURE GUESS. IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT IT IS NOT THE CASE OF PURE GUESS BUT THE AO HAS STEP BY STEP HAS PROVED THAT THE BOO K RESULT OF THE APPELLANT ARE NOT RELIABLE FOR THE REASON DISCUSSED ABOVE. TH EREFORE, NONE OF THE CASE LAWS CITED BY THE APPELLANT ARE COMING TO HELP OF T HE APPELLANT CAUSE AS THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THIS CASE IS ENTIRELY DI FFERENT AND BASED ON THE PURE ACCOUNTING REASON FOR NOT ACCEPTING THE RESULT DECLARED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS DURING THE YEAR. IN THE CA SE OF S.N. NAMASIVAYAM CHETTIAR VS. CIT 38 ITR 579 (SC) IT IS HELD THAT:- 'THE POWER TO COMPUTE PROFITS UNDER THE PROVISO TO SECTION 13 ARISES ONLY WHERE NO METHOD OF ACCOUNTING HAS BEEN REGULAR LY EMPLOYED BY THE ASSESSEE AND WHERE THE METHOD EMPLOYED IS SUCH THAT THE INCOME, PROFITS AND GAINS CANNOT PROPERLY BE DEDUCED THERE FROM. IT MEANS THAT THE METHOD ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE MUST PRIMA FACIE PREVAIL WHERE IT IS REGULARLY EMPLOYED, THOUGH THE ITO CAN RESORT TO THE PROVISO IF THE METHOD IS SUCH THAT TRUE PROFITS CANNOT BE CORRECTL Y DETERMINED THERE FROM. IN OTHER WORDS, EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE HAS REG ULARLY EMPLOYED A METHOD OF ACCOUNTING IT CAN BE DISCARDED UNDER THE PROVISO IF THE METHOD DOES NOT SHOW CORRECT PROFITS OF THE YEAR'. IN VIEW OF ABOVE DISCUSSION AND IN VIEW OF THE FACT S OF THE CASE, GP ESTIMATED BY THE AO IS REASONABLE AND APPROPRIATE WHICH IS TH E AVERAGE GROSS PROFIT OF THE EARLIER THREE YEARS, AND THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. THE GROUND OF THE APPELLANT IS DISMISSED. 8. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE AS SESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHOR ITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT MAINTAINING DAY-TO-DAY ST OCK REGISTER; AS A RESULT OF WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT VERIFY THE INCREASE IN EXPENDITURE AND CONSUMPTION OF RAW-MATERIAL, EXACT AMOUNT OF ST OCK, CHEMICALS ETC. BEING UTILIZED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE PRODUCTIO N PROCESS, AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS UNABLE TO COMPARE THE SAM E WITH LAST YEAR FIGURES. THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ITA NO. 907/AHD/2013 SANTRO TILES LTD VS. ITO AY : 2009-10 7 JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT UNDER S ECTION 145 OF THE ACT. THUS, THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 10. REGARDING MAKING ADDITION OF RS.52,71,055/- WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THAT THERE WAS TREMENDOUS IN CREASE IN THE TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AS COMPARED TO LAST YEAR. THE TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS STATED TO BE RS.21,24,98,549/- AS AGAINST RS.12,07, 79,052/- FOR LAST YEAR, I.E., AY 2008-09; AS A RESULT OF WHICH, THE EXPENDITURE R ATIO WAS ALSO INCREASED DUE TO HIGHER COST OF RAW MATERIAL, TRANSPORTATION AND VARIOUS MANUFACTURING EXPENSES AS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE. W E HAVE ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE TOTAL GP FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS RS.3,86,31,145/- AS COMPARED TO LAST YEARS GP OF RS.2,66,63,992/-. I T IS ALSO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ALONG WITH BILLS AND VOUCHERS AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT OUT ANY FINDI NG TO DISPROVE THAT THE BILLS AND VOUCHERS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE REGARDI NG ITS CLAIM ARE NOT GENUINE. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE INCREASE IN TU RNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE AND LACK OF ANY SPECIFIC DEFECT BROUGHT OUT BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN S USTAINING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, THIS GROU ND OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 20 TH APRIL, 2017 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER (AMARJIT SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 20/04/2017 *BIJU T. ITA NO. 907/AHD/2013 SANTRO TILES LTD VS. ITO AY : 2009-10 8 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 5. , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD