ACIT, CHENNAI V. Shri R.Jahabar, CHENNAI

ITSSA 29/CHNY/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7706 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-03-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 29-02-2012
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 19-11-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANIRUDH RAI
• Assessee Lawyers: D ANAND
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences; Block assessment
• Section: 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.(SS) A. NO. 29/MDS/2010 (BLOCK PERIOD : 1.4.1989 TO 29.7.1999) THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE V, CHENNAI - 600 034. (APPELLANT) V. SHRI R. JAHABAR, L/H SH. SHAHUL HAMEED, ANDAVAN NAGAR, 5 TH STREET, KODAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI - 600 034. PAN : AACPJ6270H (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI ANIRUDH RAI, CIT-DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI D. A NAND, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING : 29.02.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16.03.2012 O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST AN ORDER DATED 30.8.2010 OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPE ALS)-VIII, CHENNAI, AND HAS FIVE GROUNDS IN IT. 2. GROUND NOS.1 AND 5 ARE GENERAL NEEDING NO ADJUDI CATION. I.T.(SS) A. NO. 29/MDS/10 2 3. VIDE ITS GROUND NO.2, REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED THAT LD. CIT(APPEALS) DIRECTED THE A.O. TO DELETE THE ADDITI ONS OF CERTAIN DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNTS WITH M/S CANARA BANK, CON SIDERING IT TO BE UNEXPLAINED. AS PER THE REVENUE, THOUGH THE SAID A CCOUNTS WERE OPERATED AND MAINTAINED BY A THIRD PERSON, THIS WAS NOT A RELEVANT FACTOR SINCE THE ADDITIONS MADE WERE ONLY FOR INITI AL DEPOSITS FOR WHICH NO EXPLANATION WAS OFFERED. IN ANY CASE, AS PER TH E REVENUE, THE BUSINESS CONCERNS, NAMELY, M/S RUKMI ENTERPRISES AN D M/S RAJ SOAP WORKS ON BEHALF OF WHICH DEPOSITS WERE MADE, B ELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE ONLY. 4. SHORT FACTS APROPOS ARE THAT ASSESSEE, MANUFACTU RER OF SOAP AND DETERGENT, WAS SUBJECTED TO SEARCH UNDER SECTIO N 132 OF INCOME- TAX ACT, 1962 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'), ON 29.7.1999. ASSESSEE PASSED AWAY ON 22.6.2000. RETURN FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD WAS FILED BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE SHRI J. SHAHUL HAMEED. BLOCK ASSESS MENT WAS THEREAFTER COMPLETED WHEREIN THE TOTAL UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS COMPUTED AT ` 27,02,680/-. 5. AN APPEAL WAS FILED BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) BY T HE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS), REVENUE FILED FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. THIS TRIBUNAL BY ITS ORDER DATED I.T.(SS) A. NO. 29/MDS/10 3 3.11.2006 IN I.T.(SS) A. NO. 32/MDS/02, SET ASIDE T HE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND REMITTED THE ISSUES BACK TO A SSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. THEREAFTER, PROCEEDINGS W ERE INITIATED AS DIRECTED BY THE TRIBUNAL, BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND BLOCK ASSESSMENT DONE AFRESH. 6. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, AS PER THE A.O., TH ERE WERE DOCUMENTS FOUND WHICH INDICATED THAT THE ASSESSEE W AS INVOLVED IN TWO CONCERNS, NAMELY, M/S RUKMI ENTERPRISES AND M/S RAJ SOAP WORKS. THERE WERE CERTAIN DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNT S, NAMELY, CANARA BANK, VADAPALANI, CANARA BANK, VALASARAVAKKA M AND SYNDICATE BANK, AMINJIKARAI. AS PER THE A.O., ASSE SSEE WAS UNABLE TO GIVE DETAILS OF DEPOSITS IN SUCH ACCOUNTS. EXPL ANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO THE ACCOUNT IN SYNDICATE BA NK WAS THAT IT WAS OPENED AND OPERATED BY ONE M/S RUKMI ENTERPRISE S AND THE SAID ENTERPRISE WAS MANAGED BY ASSESSEES SON AND S TAFF. HOWEVER, AS REGARDS DEPOSITS IN CANARA BANK, SUBMIS SION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT IT WAS OPERATED BY ONE SHRI NANDA GOPAL AND SHRI NANDAGOPALS SON, WHO WERE NOT RELATED TO HIM. IN THE SWORN STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE ON 29.12.1999, IT W AS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ANSWER TO QUESTION NO.25, THAT ACCOUNT IN CANARA BANK I.T.(SS) A. NO. 29/MDS/10 4 WAS OPERATED BY SHRI NANDAGOPAL AND LATTERS SON FO R M/S RAJ SOAP WORKS. HOWEVER, THE A.O. WAS NOT IMPRESSED. AS P ER THE A.O., ASSESSEE HAD MADE PROCUREMENTS OF LAB, ONE OF THE R AW MATERIALS USED IN MANUFACTURING OF SOAP AND DETERGENT, THROUG H THE CONCERNS M/S RUKMI ENTERPRISES AND M/S RAJ SOAP WORKS. THE SAID CONCERNS WERE NAME LENDERS AND BUSINESS THEREOF WAS LOOKED A FTER BY ASSESSEE. AS PER THE A.O., SHRI J. SHAHUL HAMEED, REPRESENTING THE DECEASED ASSESSEE, WAS NOT ABLE TO FURNISH ANY EVID ENCE IN SUPPORT OF DEPOSITS IN THESE TWO BANK ACCOUNTS. ADDITION W AS MADE FOR THE INITIAL DEPOSITS WHICH CAME TO ` 3,65,300/-. 7. IN ITS APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS), ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE ACCOUNTS IN CANARA BANK WERE OPERATED BY SHRI NANDAGOPAL AND NANDAGOPALS SON FOR RAJ SOAP WORKS AND ASSESSEE HAD NO CONTROL OVER THE SAME. AS PER THE ASSESSEE, ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN DOUBTED IN THIS REGARD. FURTHER SUBMISSION WAS THAT WHEN THE BUSINESS WAS MANAGED B Y SHRI NANDAGOPAL AND NANDAGOPALS SON, DEPOSITS IN THE BA NK ACCOUNTS OF THE SAID BUSINESS COULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. LD. CIT(APPEALS) WAS APPRECIATIVE OF THE SE CONTENTIONS. I.T.(SS) A. NO. 29/MDS/10 5 ACCORDING TO HIM, INSOFAR AS DEPOSIT IN SYNDICATE B ANK ACCOUNT WAS CONCERNED, THE SAME COULD BE CONSIDERED IN THE HAND S OF THE ASSESSEE SINCE IT WAS OPERATED BY ASSESSEES SON. BUT DEPOSITS IN CANARA BANK COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED SO SINCE THE AC COUNTS WERE NOT OPERATED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, OUT OF ` 3,65,300/-, LD. CIT(APPEALS) DELETED A SUM OF ` 2,61,300/-, BEING DEPOSITS IN CANARA BANK. 8. NOW BEFORE US, LEARNED D.R., STRONGLY ASSAILING THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS), SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE IN HIS SWORN STATEMENT HAD ACCEPTED THAT THE CONCERNS, NAMELY, M/S RUKMI ENTER PRISES AND M/S RAJ SOAP WORKS WERE ONLY NAME LENDERS IN HIS BUSINE SS. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO LEARNED D.R., THE ASSESSING OFFICER WA S ABSOLUTELY JUSTIFIED IN MAKING AN ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DEPOS ITS IN THE SAID BANK ACCOUNTS. AGAIN, AS PER LEARNED D.R., ADDITIONS WE RE MADE FOR INITIAL DEPOSITS AND NOT FOR ANY FURTHER DEPOSITS. ASSESSE E HAVING ACCEPTED THAT THE MENTIONED CONCERNS WERE NAME LENDERS IN TH E BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE, HE WAS DUTY BOUND TO EXPLAIN SOURCE O F DEPOSITS THEREIN. HAVING NOT DONE SO, ACCORDING TO LEARNED D.R., ADDITIONS WERE RIGHTLY DONE. I.T.(SS) A. NO. 29/MDS/10 6 9. PER CONTRA, LEARNED A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE CONC ERN M/S RAJ SOAP WORKS, WHICH HAD MAINTAINED ACCOUNTS IN CANARA BANK BELONGED TO A THIRD PARTY. ACCORDING TO LEARNED A. R., ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF HAD IN HIS ORDER STATED THAT THE AC COUNT WITH CANARA BANK, VADAPALANI, WAS OPENED BY ONE SHRI C. SELVARA J. THUS, ACCORDING TO HIM, THE ACCOUNT IN CANARA BANK WAS OP ENED BY SHRI C. SELVARAJ AND OPERATED BY SHRI NANDAGOPAL AND LATTER S SON. NONE OF THESE PARTIES WERE RELATED TO THE ASSESSEE. THUS, ADDITION FOR DEPOSITS IN THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT COULD NOT HAVE BE EN DONE IN ASSESSEES HAND. FURTHER, ACCORDING TO HIM, ASSESS EE HAD NEVER ADMITTED IN HIS SWORN STATEMENT THAT ACCOUNT WITH C ANARA BANK BELONGED TO HIM. ON THE OTHER HAND, IN ANSWER TO QUESTION NO.25, IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED ON 29.12.9, IT WAS CLEARLY M ENTIONED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ACCOUNTS IN CANARA BANK WERE MANA GED BY SHRI NANDAGOPAL AND SHRI NANDAGOPALS SON. THEREFORE, A CCORDING TO HIM, LD. CIT(APPEALS) WAS JUSTIFIED IN THE FACTS AN D CIRCUMSTANCES IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITION. 10. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS AND HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ACCOUNT IN CANARA BANK WAS NOT OPERATED BY THE ASSESSEE. ADMITTEDLY, THESE WERE O PERATED BY SHRI I.T.(SS) A. NO. 29/MDS/10 7 NANDAGOPAL AND SHRI NANDAGOPALS SON. IT ALSO COME S OUT FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ACCOUNT WITH CANARA BANK, VADAPALANI, WAS OPENED BY ONE SHRI C. SELVARAJ. IN PARA 4 OF H IS ORDER, THE A.O. HAS MENTIONED THIS CLEARLY. LEARNED D.R. WAS UNABL E TO PRODUCE A COPY OF THE SWORN STATEMENT BEFORE US WHICH COULD S HOW THAT ASSESSEE HAD CONFIRMED THE SAID ACCOUNT TO BE BELON GING TO HIM AND NOT TO SHRI NANDAGOPAL. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT FOR THE DEPOSITS MADE IN THE SAID ACCOUNT, ASS ESSEE COULD NOT BE FASTENED WITH AN ONUS OF EXPLANATION. LD. CIT(APPE ALS) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION. 11. GROUND NO.2 OF THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. 12. VIDE ITS GROUND NO.3, GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAD DIRECTED TO A.O. TO RESTRICT THE A DDITION FOR PROFITS ON SALE OF LAB TO 50%. 13. FACTS APROPOS ARE THAT ASSESSEE HAD PROCURED LA B FROM M/S RUKMI ENTERPRISES AND M/S RAJ SOAP WORKS FOR MANUFA CTURING OF SOAP AND DETERGENT. OUT OF THE SAID PROCUREMENT, A SSESSEE HAD SOLD A PART. IN THE SWORN STATEMENT, ASSESSEE ADMITTED THAT HE HAD SOLD LAB WHICH WAS LEFT AFTER HIS OWN CONSUMPTION, AND O N SUCH SALE, HAD I.T.(SS) A. NO. 29/MDS/10 8 OBTAINED A PROFIT OF 70 PAISE TO RE.1 PER KILOGRAM. ASSESSING OFFICER BASED ON A CALCULATION OF BALANCE QUANTITY OF LAB L EFT AFTER UTILIZATION BY ASSESSEE FOR HIS OWN PRODUCTION, CAME TO A CONCL USION THAT ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE EARNED AN INCOME OF ` 9,10,500/- AT THE RATE OF 70 P. TO RE.1. ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE A.O. WAS THAT OUT OF TOTAL SALES, 50% STOOD ALREADY DISCLOSED AND ONLY 50% WAS UNDISCLOSED AND THIS WAS CLEARLY STATED IN HIS ANSW ER TO QUESTION NO.15 OF HIS SWORN STATEMENT DATED 29.7.99. THEREF ORE, AS PER THE ASSESSEE, AN ADDITION CONSIDERING THE WHOLE OF THE SALE OF RAW MATERIALS AS OUTSIDE OF BOOKS WOULD RESULT IN A DOU BLE WHAMMY. HOWEVER, ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT IMPRESSED. ACCO RDING TO HIM, ASSESSEE HAD EFFECTED THE SALE OF RAW MATERIALS OUT SIDE THE BOOKS AND THEREFORE, PROFIT HAD TO BE ESTIMATED BASED ON THE SWORN STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE IN WHICH HE HAD ACCEPTED A SURPLUS OF 75 P. TO RE.1 PER KILOGRAM ON SUCH SALE. 14. BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS), ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESS EE WAS THAT IN THE SWORN STATEMENT IT WAS CLEARLY STATED THAT 50% OF SALE OF LAB STOOD ALREADY DISCLOSED IN THE BLOCK RETURN FILED. THEREFORE, AS PER THE ASSESSEE, ADDITION OUGHT HAVE BEEN ONLY FOR THE 50% OF THE SALE AND NOT FOR THE FULL QUANTUM OF SALE EFFECTED BY HI M. LD. CIT(APPEALS) I.T.(SS) A. NO. 29/MDS/10 9 WAS IMPRESSED. ACCORDING TO HIM, WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD CLEARLY STATED THAT 50% OF LAB SALES WERE EFFECTED OUTSIDE THE BOOKS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT NOT HAVE CONSIDERED WHOLE O F THE SALE OF RAW MATERIAL TO HAVE BEEN DONE OUTSIDE THE BOOKS, ESPEC IALLY, SINCE THE BOOKS WERE IN THE POSSESSION OF DEPARTMENT ITSELF. HE, THEREFORE, RESTRICTED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. TO 50% OF THE AMOUNT. 15. NOW BEFORE US, LEARNED D.R. SUBMITTED THAT ASSE SSEE IN THE SWORN STATEMENT GIVEN ON 29.12.99 ADMITTED THAT 50% OF THE SALES WERE OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. BUT, ACCORDING TO LEARNED D.R., SUCH 50% SALES MENTIONED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS FOR FI NISHED GOODS AND NOT FOR RAW MATERIAL. AS PER LEARNED D.R., ASS ESSEE WOULD NOT HAVE ACCOUNTED THE SALE OF RAW MATERIAL AND THEREFO RE, LD. CIT(APPEALS) FELL IN ERROR IN COMING TO A CONCLUSIO N THAT 50% OF SALE OF RAW MATERIAL WAS ACCOUNTED IN THE BOOKS. 16. PER CONTRA, LEARNED A.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS). 17. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS AND HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT IN HIS REPLY TO QUESTIONS NO.15 AND 29 IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED ON 29.12.99, ASSESSEE HAD STATED THAT 50% OF I.T.(SS) A. NO. 29/MDS/10 10 SALES STOOD ALREADY DISCLOSED AND 50% OF SALES WERE UNDISCLOSED. IN OUR OPINION, THE PRESUMPTION TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE CONTEMPLATED ONLY SALE OF FINIS HED GOODS AND NOT RAW MATERIAL, COULD NOT BE ACCEPTED. WHEN IN A BUSINESS, SELLER CONTEMPLATES THE VOLUME OF SALE, WE CANNOT SAY THAT HE WOULD MAKE ANY DEMARCATION BETWEEN RAW MATERIAL AND FINISHED G OODS. ESPECIALLY SO, WHEN THE SALE OF RAW MATERIAL WAS OF A SUBSTANTIAL QUANTITY COMING TO ABOUT 11,91,020 KILOGRAMS OF LAB S. WHEN THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF ADMITTED 50% SALES IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, AGAIN CONSIDERING A PART THEREOF FOR ADDITION WILL CERTAI NLY END UP IN DUPLICATION. THE SWORN STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE O UGHT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY AND SHOULD NOT HAVE TAKE N ON A PIECEMEAL BASIS BY THE REVENUE. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, WE AR E OF THE OPINION THAT LD. CIT(APPEALS) WAS VERY WELL JUSTIFIED IN SC ALING DOWN THE ADDITION TO 50% OF WHAT WAS MADE BY THE A.O. SINCE 50% OF THE SALES STOOD REFLECTED IN ITS BOOKS. WE DO NOT FIND ANY R EASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS). 18. GROUND NO.3 TAKEN BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISS ED. I.T.(SS) A. NO. 29/MDS/10 11 19. VIDE ITS GROUND NO.4, GRIEVANCE RAISED BY THE A SSESSEE IS THAT LD. CIT(APPEALS) DIRECTED THE A.O. TO RESTRICT PROF IT PERCENTAGE ON SALE OF FINISHED GOODS TO 3.5% AGAINST 7% CONSIDERED BY THE A.O. 20. FACTS APROPOS ARE THAT ASSESSING OFFICER BASED ON SEIZED MATERIAL, WORKED OUT THE TOTAL QUANTITY OF LAB PURC HASED AND CONSUMED BY THE ASSESSEE. BASED ON SUCH WORK-OUT, HE ARRIVED AT THE POSSIBLE QUANTITY AND VALUE OF SOAPS THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN MANUFACTURED. ON SUCH VALUE, HE MADE AN ADDITION O F 16% ESTIMATE OF GROSS PROFIT FOR ARRIVING AT TOTAL TURNOVER. ON SUCH TURNOVER, HE APPLIED A NET PROFIT RATE OF 7% AND ESTIMATED PROFI T OF ` 14,26,880/-. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WERE BLOCK ASSESSMENTS DONE ON HIS WIFE AND HIS BROTHER-IN-LAW AS WELL, UN DER SECTION 158BD, AND THE DEPARTMENT HAD ACCEPTED 3.5% AS NET PROFIT RATE FOR THEM, THIS DID NOT FIND FAVOUR WITH A.O. 21. BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS), ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESS EE WAS THAT THERE WAS AN ARBITRARY PRESUMPTION OF GROSS AS WELL NET PROFIT RATE. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, WHEN THE DEPARTMENT HAD ACCEPTED 3.5% IN THE CASE OF HIS WIFE AND BROTHER-IN-LAW WITHOUT ANY DEMUR, THEY OUGHT NOT HAVE ADOPTED 7% NET PROFIT RATE IN THE CA SE OF ASSESSEE. LD. CIT(APPEALS) WAS OF THE OPINION THAT 7% PROFIT HAD BEEN I.T.(SS) A. NO. 29/MDS/10 12 ESTIMATED WITHOUT ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. HENCE H E RESTRICTED IT TO 3.5%. 22. BEFORE US LEARNED D.R. SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(A PPEALS) FELL IN ERROR WHILE RESTRICTING THE PERCENTAGE OF NET PROFI T TO 3.5% WHEN NO SUBSTANTIATING EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSE E. 23. PER CONTRA, LEARNED A.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS). 24. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS AND HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. NET PROFIT WORKED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS E XTRACTED FROM PARA 11 OF ASSESSMENT ORDER, IS GIVEN HEREUNDER:- TOTAL QUANTITY OF LAB CONSUMED AS PER THE SWORN STATEMENT GIVEN BY LATE SHRI R. JAHABAR (IN KGS) : 235200 VALUE @ RS.56 PER KG : ` 1,31,71,200/ - THE LAB CONSTITUTES 70% OF THE COST OF SOAP MANUFACTURE. THEN BALANCE 30% IS FOR OTHER ITEMS. HENCE, 30% OF THE ABOVE SUM IS ADDED : ` 39,51,360/- ` 1,71,22,560/ - ADD : 16% GROSS PROFIT : ` 32, 61,440/ - TOTAL TURNOVER : ` 2,03,84,000/ - NET PROFIT IS ESTIMATED AT 7% OF THE TURNOVER : ` 14,26,880/ - NO BASIS HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FO R DETERMINING EITHER 16% GROSS PROFIT RATE OR 7% NET PROFIT RATE. NO COMPARABLE I.T.(SS) A. NO. 29/MDS/10 13 CASE HAS BEEN SHOWN. SO, IT WAS A PURE GUESS WORK MADE BY THE A.O. AS AGAINST THIS, LD. CIT(APPEALS) ADOPTED 3.5 % SINCE THAT WAS THE RATE OF PROFIT RETURNED BY ASSESSEES WIFE AND BROTHER-IN-LAW IN THEIR RESPECTIVE BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT AND THIS WAS ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE WIT HOUT DEMUR. MAY BE, AS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED D.R., THE SAID ASSE SSMENTS WERE COMPLETED ON SUMMARY BASIS. BUT, IN OUR OPINION, T HE CASES CITED STILL WERE VERY MUCH COMPARABLE SINCE THE DEPARTMENT HAD ACCEPTED IT. IN OUR OPINION, LD. CIT(APPEALS) WAS JUSTIFIED IN R ESTRICTING THE ADDITION TO 3.5% CONSIDERING THEM TO BE COMPARABLE. NO INTE RFERENCE WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) IS REQUIRED. 25. GROUND NO.4 STANDS DISMISSED. 26. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE STAN DS DISMISSED. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 16 TH MARCH, 2012. SD/- SD/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 16 TH MARCH, 2012. KRI. COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT(A)-VIII, CHENNAI -34/ CIT-VI, CHENNAI-34/D.R./GUARD FILE