Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 2]

Gujarat High Court

Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax ... vs Standard Agro Engineers on 4 September, 2018

Author: Akil Kureshi

Bench: Akil Kureshi, B.N. Karia

         C/TAXAP/1090/2018                             ORDER




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                       R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1090 of 2018

==========================================================
         PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RAJKOT 2
                             Versus
                   STANDARD AGRO ENGINEERS
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MR BHATT, SENIOR ADVOCATE with MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for
the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
 for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
        and
        HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.N. KARIA

                              Date : 04/09/2018

                       ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)   

1.   Revenue is in appeal against the judgment  of   the   Income­tax   Appellate   Tribunal   dated  25.1.2018   raising   following   substantial  questions of law :­    "(A)   Whether the Appellate Tribunal has   erred in law and on facts in deleting the   addition Rs.1,55,39,185/­ made on account   of gross profit of the assessee ? 

 

(B)    Whether the Appellate Tribunal has   erred in law and on facts in deleting the   addition   of   Rs.52,74,173/­   on   account   of   unexplained cash credit ? 

 

(C)     Whether the Appellate Tribunal has   erred in law and on facts in deleting the   addition of Rs.1,44,674/­ made on account   Page 1 of 3 C/TAXAP/1090/2018 ORDER of   depreciation   of   cars   and   depreciation   of Rs.90,109/­ on guest house expenses ? 

 

(D)     Whether   the   Appellate   Tribunal   has   erred in law and on facts in deleting the   addition   made   by   AO   of   Rs.2,55,883/­   on   account   of   membership   fees   and   MOT   charges ?"

 
2.   Question (A) pertains to the deletion made  by   the   Assessing   Officer   on   the   basis   of  revised   gross   profit   ratio.   The   Assessing  Officer   rejected   the   book   results   of   the  assessee and made addition at the rate of 5%  of the turn over by way of profit in appeal.  CIT   (Appeals)   reduced   the   same   to   1.51%   on  the basis of past records and other relevant  materials. This decision was confirmed by the  Tribunal.   
 
3. Having perused the decisions on record we do  not find any reason to interfere with the CIT  (Appeals)   judgment.   The   results   have   passed  several   years   in   order   to   come   to   the   GP  rate.   The   Tribunal   confirmed   such   decision.  Entire issue is thus fact based.   
 
4.   Question   (B)   pertains   to   deletion   and  addition   made   by   the   Assessing   Officer   on  account   of   unexplained   cash   credit.   CIT  (Appeals)   and   Tribunal   noted   that   the  assessee   had   satisfactorily   explained   the  Page 2 of 3 C/TAXAP/1090/2018 ORDER entries.   Here   again   no   question   of   law  arises.  
 
5.  Question (C) pertains to the addition made  by   the   assessee   by   disallowing   the  depreciation   of   cars   and   guest­house  expenses.   The   CIT   (Appeals)   and   Tribunal  found   that   the   firm   purchased   the   car   was  from   the  assessee  company  and  were  utilized  by the directors.  
6.   Question (D) pertains to the deletion and  addition   made   by   the   Assessing   Officer   on  account of membership fees and Merchant Over  Time   Charges.   CIT   (Appeals)   noted   that   the  assessee could not produce necessary material  in   support   of   such   expenditure   before   the  Assessing Officer due to shortage of time. He  noted   that   MOT   charges   were   paid   to   the  Excise Department. Thus, supporting material  was placed before the CIT (Appeals) which was  accepted.   The   Tribunal   confirmed   this   view.  No substantial question of law arises. 
  
7. Tax appeal is dismissed. 
(AKIL KURESHI, J) (B.N. KARIA, J) K.K. SAIYED Page 3 of 3