Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jodhpur
M/S. Suraj Exports India , Churu vs Department Of Income Tax on 17 February, 2014
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELALTE TRIBUNAL : JODHPUR BENCH : JODHPUR
BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND
SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER.
ITA No. 545/Jodh/2013
(A.Y. 2010-11)
ITO, Ward-2, Vs. M/s. Suraj Exports India
Churu. Near Railway Station,
Sardarshahar, Churu.
PAN No. ABBFS 8126 M
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by : Shri U.C. Jain &
Shri Rajendra Jain
Department By : Shri N.A. Joshi- D.R.
Date of hearing : 17/02/2014.
Date of pronouncement : 21/02/2014.
ORDER
PER N.K. SAINI, A.M
This is an appeal by the department against the order dated 16/09/2013 of ld. CIT (A)-III, Jaipur. The following grounds have been raised in this appeal:
"1. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the trading addition of Rs. 34,44,495/- by holding that the rejection of books of accounts u/s 145(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 was not 2 fair and just, even when profit could not be deduced correctly from the accounts, defects in which were indicated by the A.O.
2. The CIT(A) has further erred in treating duty draw back as business income instead of income from other sources as held by the A.O."
2 Ground No.1 relates to the deletion of trading addition amounting to Rs. 34,44,495/- made by the Assessing Officer by invoking the provisions of section 145(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' in short) and ground No.2 relates to the income received on account of the duty drawback as business income.
3. Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee had shown total sales of Rs. 4,69,91,888/- which included duty drawback of Rs. 16,24,183/-. The assessee had shown gross profit of Rs. 49,84,839/- which gave the gross profit rate of 10.61%. The Assessing Officer observed that if the duty drawback is excluded from the total sales and the gross profit rate came to 7.41%. He, therefore, asked the assessee to furnish stock register, inventory of opening & closing stock and quantitative details of day to day consumption of material. The Assessing Officer further observed that assessee did not produce stock register and quantitative details of day to day consumption. He, therefore, invoked the provisions of section 145(3) of the Act and worked out the income by 3 applying the GP rate of 15%. He also excluded duty drawback amounting to Rs. 60,24,183/- from the total turnover and accordingly made a trading addition of Rs. 34,44,495/-. The Assessing Officer while computing income of the assessee, separately added the duty drawback and mentioned that the profit derived by way of remission of duty drawback did not form part of the profit for exemption under section 10BA of the Act.
4. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A), who deleted the trading addition by observing that the similar addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) for the A.Y. 2009-10 vide order dated 29/11/2012 was reversed by the ITAT vide their decision dated 17/07/2013 in I.T.A.No. 38/Jodh/2013. As regards to the duty drawback, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that the ITAT vide order dated 17/07/2013 in I.T.A.No. 38/Jodh/2013 clearly held that the assessee was eligible for deduction under section 10BA of the Act in respect of profits from sale of DEPB and duty drawback. The Ld. CIT(A) reproduced the said decision at pages 26 to 30 of the impugned order, for cost of repetition, the same is not reproduced herein. Now the department is in appeal.
4
5. Learned D.R. although supported the order of the Assessing Officer, but could not rebut the findings of the Ld. CIT(A).
6. In his rival submissions, learned counsel for the assessee strongly supported the order of Ld. CIT(A) and further submitted that since the issues under consideration have been decided by the Ld. CIT(A) by following the decision of the ITAT in assessee's own case in the preceding assessment year i.e. A.Y. 2009-10, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be upheld.
7. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on record. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the Ld. CIT(A) decided the issues under consideration in favour of the assessee by following the decision of ITAT in I.T.A.No. 38/Jodh/2013 for the A.Y. 2009-10, order dated 17/07/2013 in assessee's own case and it is not a case of the department that the facts of the present case are not similar to the facts involved in the preceding assessment year 2009-10. We, therefore, do not see any valid ground to interfere with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) given in the impugned order by following the earlier order of the Tribunal in 5 assessee's own case for the preceding year. In that view of the matter, we do not see any merit in this appeal of the department.
8. In the result, appeal of the department is dismissed.
(Order Pronounced in the Court on 21 s t February, 2014).
Sd/- sd/-
(HARI OM MARATHA) (N.K.SAINI)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated : 21 s t February, 2014.
vr/-
Copy to:
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent
3. The ld.CIT
4. The CIT(A)
5. The D.R
Assistant Registrar,
ITAT, Jodhpur.