Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur
Collector Ram Sharma , Jaipur vs Dcit , Jaipur on 10 November, 2016
vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR
Jh dqy Hkkjr] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k
BEFORE: SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM
vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 771/JP/2012
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2009-10.
Sh. Collector Ram Sharma,
C-47, Mahesh Nagar,
Tonk Phatak,
Jaipur.
cuke
Vs.
The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax,
Circle-6,
Jaipur.
LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN No. AGWPS 1561 Q
vihykFkhZ@Appellant
izR;FkhZ@Respondent
fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A.)
jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Roshanta Meena (JCIT)
lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 27.10.2016.
?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 10 /11/2016.
vkns'k@ ORDER
PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM.
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT (Appeals)-II, Jaipur dated 16.08.2012 pertaining to A.Y. 2009-10. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :-
In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT (A) has erred in confirming the action of the ld. AO in not properly estimating the income and restoring to specific disallowances instead of applying appropriate N.P. rate which is a settled methodology for estimating the income of civil contractors. The action of the ld. CIT (A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by appropriately estimating the income by way of applying N.P. rate based on past history.
In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT (A) has erred in confirming the action of the ld. AO in disallowing a sum of Rs. 74,50,155/- out of material and labour expenses. The action of the ld. CIT (A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by quashing the said disallowance of Rs. 74,50,155/-.
In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT (A) has erred in confirming the action of the ld. AO regarding addition of a sum of Rs. 48,34,995/- u/s 68 of the IT Act, 1961. The action of the ld. CIT (A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by deleting the said addition of Rs. 48,34,995/-.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the case of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny assessment and the assessment under section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was framed vide order dated 25th July, 2011. While framing the assessment, the AO rejected the books of account and estimated the profit by applying Net Profit rate at 12.88% thus making an addition of Rs. 74,50,155/-. The AO also made an addition of Rs. 48,34,995/- by invoking provisions of section 68 of the Act. Aggrieved by this order, the assessee preferred an appeal before ld. CIT (A), who after considering the submissions and material available on record dismissed the appeal.
3. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
4. Ground Nos. 1 & 2 are against estimation of profit and consequently making an addition of Rs. 74,50,155/-. Both the grounds are inter connected, therefore they are being disposed together.
4.1. The ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as made in the written brief. The ld. Counsel submitted that it is a settled position that once the books of accounts are rejected by invoking provisions of section 145(3) of the Act, the only recourse available to the assessee is to make the assessment under section 144 of the Act. He submitted that for making the assessment under section 144, the past history of the assessee or history of similarly situated other businessmen/ traders is the best guide. The ld. Counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court rendered in the case of Inani Marbles (P) Ltd. (2009) 316 ITR 125 (Raj.) in support of the contention that past history of the assessee is one of the most reliable guidance to make or not to make any estimation/addition. The ld. Counsel submitted that the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of assessee for the immediate preceding assessment years has consistently upheld the Net Profit rate @ 8% subject to interest and depreciation. The ld. Counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Coordinate Bench in assessee's own case for the A.Y. 2008-09. The ld. Counsel submitted that the authorities below have failed to bring on record any material which suggests that the facts and circumstances of the relevant previous year have undergone any change as compared to the preceding assessment year. He submitted that the assessee has been engaged in the same business activity for the same Government department in the year under appeal also. The ld. Counsel submitted that the assessee maintained cash book and ledger on computer but supporting vouchers related to expenses or any register for payment of labour or relating to stock were not maintained by the assessee. This was due to the assessee's nature of business wherein work had to be carried out at different far off locations without much administrative support. The ld. Counsel submitted that non maintenance of vouchers and labour register was one of the reasons why books of accounts of the assessee were rejected by the ld. AO and which was also upheld by the ld. CIT (A). The ld. Counsel submitted that when books of accounts are rejected, the AO is required to make best judgment assessment. The ld. Counsel submitted that reason for making trading addition was the fact that the GP percentage declared by the assessee for the relevant previous year was lower than the GP percentage declared for the immediately preceding year. The ld. Counsel submitted that even if the GP percentage submitted by the assessee for the relevant previous year is replaced by the GP percentage declared for the immediately preceding year, it would, at worst, result into trading additions of Rs. 4,95,301/- only. Whereas the ld. AO has made addition of Rs. 74,50,155/-. He submitted that the declared trading results may be accepted.
4.2. On the contrary, the ld. D/R has supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the AO has brought on record that the assessee has all kinds of plant and machinery required for construction of roads and civil work. Evidently, hire charges Rs. 45,62,140/- incurred in the AY 2008-09 has reduced to only Rs. 80,000/- in the current year, thus, the reduction of expenses under hire charges by Rs. 44,82,144/- should have been reflected in the profit of the assessee. The ld. D/R submitted that this fact is not controverted by the assessee that hire charges have been reduced to a large extent. The ld. D/R also submitted that the assessee has admitted the fact that he is not maintaining the vouchers and no voucher in support of the expenditure was produced before the authorities below. The ld. D/R submitted that the AO, was therefore, justified in estimating the GP rate at 12.88%.
4.3. We have heard rival contentions and perused the material available on record. Undisputedly, the AO has rejected the books of account which is not challenged by the assessee. It is a settled position of law that when the books are rejected, the AO is required to make estimation of profit. In the present case the AO has accepted the gross receipts of the assessee. Consequently the work carried out by the assessee was accepted. Now the issue for estimation of profit before the AO would be how much expenditure the assessee might have incurred for the work carried out. The estimation of profit although involved some guess work, but it should not purely based on guess work. Assuming that the accounts of the assesee are not reliable for want of verification of expenses booked by it, the AO is not empowered to arrive at unrealistic figure of expenditure. If it is so done, that would tantamount the tax receipt which otherwise is not taxable. Under the Provisions of Income Tax, if any receipt is under the head Business or Profession, what is to be taxed is the profit as the opening words of section 28 reads as under :-
"Profits and gains of business or profession.
1928. 20The following income shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession",--
(i) the profits and gains21 of any business or profession21 which was carried on by the assessee at any time during the previous year ;
(ii) any compensation21 or other payment due to21 or received by21,--
(a) any person, by whatever name called, managing the whole or substantially the whole of the affairs of an Indian company, at or in connection with the termination of his management or the modification of the terms and conditions relating thereto;
(b) any person, by whatever name called, managing the whole or substantially the whole of the affairs in India of any other company, at or in connection with the termination of his office or the modification of the terms and conditions relating thereto ;
(c) any person, by whatever name called, holding an agency in India for any part of the activities relating to the business of any other person, at or in connection with the termination of the agency or the modification of the terms and conditions relating thereto ;
22[(d) any person, for or in connection with the vesting in the Government, or in any corporation owned or controlled by the Government, under any law for the time being in force, of the management of any property or business ;]
(iii) income derived by a trade, professional or similar23 association from specific services23 performed for its members ;
24 [(iiia) profits on sale of a licence granted under the Imports (Control) Order, 1955, made under the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 (18 of 1947) ;] 25 [(iiib) cash assistance (by whatever name called) received or receivable by any person against exports under any scheme of the Government of India ;] 26 [(iiic) any duty of customs or excise re-paid or re-payable as drawback to any person against exports under the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1971 ;] 27 [(iiid) any profit on the transfer of the Duty Entitlement Pass Book Scheme, being the Duty Remission Scheme under the export and import policy formulated and announced under section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (22 of 1992);] 28 [(iiie) any profit on the transfer of the Duty Free Replenishment Certificate, being the Duty Remission Scheme under the export and import policy formulated and announced under section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (22 of 1992) ;] 29 [(iv) the value of any benefit or perquisite, whether convertible into money or not, arising from business or the exercise of a profession ;] 30 [(v) any interest, salary, bonus, commission or remuneration, by whatever name called, due to, or received by, a partner of a firm from such firm :
Provided that where any interest, salary, bonus, commission or remuneration, by whatever name called, or any part thereof has not been allowed to be deducted under clause (b) of section 40, the income under this clause shall be adjusted to the extent of the amount not so allowed to be deducted ;] 31 [(va) any sum, whether received or receivable, in cash or kind, under an agreement for--
(a) not carrying out any activity in relation to any business; or
(b) not sharing any know-how, patent, copyright, trade-mark, licence, franchise or any other business or commercial right of similar nature or information or technique likely to assist in the manufacture or processing of goods or provision for services:
Provided that sub-clause (a) shall not apply to--
(i) any sum, whether received or receivable, in cash or kind, on account of transfer of the right to manufacture, produce or process any article or thing or right to carry on any business, which is chargeable under the head "Capital gains";
(ii) any sum received as compensation, from the multilateral fund of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone layer under the United Nations Environment Programme, in accordance with the terms of agreement entered into with the Government of India.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this clause,--
(i) "agreement" includes any arrangement or understanding or action in concert,--
(A) whether or not such arrangement, understanding or action is formal or in writing; or (B) whether or not such arrangement, understanding or action is intended to be enforceable by legal proceedings;
(ii) "service" means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes the provision of services in connection with business of any industrial or commercial nature such as accounting, banking, communication, conveying of news or information, advertising, entertainment, amusement, education, financing, insurance, chit funds, real estate, construction, transport, storage, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, boarding and lodging;] 32 [(vi) any sum received under a Keyman insurance policy including the sum allocated by way of bonus on such policy.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this clause, the expression "Keyman insurance policy" shall have the meaning assigned to it in clause (10D) of section 10.] Explanation 1.--[Omitted by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, w.e.f. 1-4-1989.] Explanation 2.--Where speculative transactions carried on by an assessee are of such a nature as to constitute a business, the business (hereinafter referred to as "speculation business") shall be deemed to be distinct and separate from any other business."
Thus from the above, it is clear that only the profit element is to be determined from the gross profit. It is not disputed by the revenue that in earlier year the Tribunal in assessee's own case in ITA No. 1077/JP/2011 pertaining to A.Y. 2008-09 had restricted the disallowance to the extent of net profit rate at 8% subject to allowance of depreciation and interest. In the year under consideration we find that the AO has pointed out reduction of hire charges expenditure. This fact is not rebutted by the assessee, hence this reduction of expenditure would certainly increase the profit margin of the assessee. As per the AO, in the assessment year 2008-09 the assessee had incurred hire charges expenditure of Rs. 45,62,140/- whereas hire charges incurred in the present year is Rs. 80,000/-. The assessee has not brought on record any material suggesting that the hire charges were paid on account of non functioning of the assessee's own machinery. Therefore, we deem it proper to restrict the disallowance @ 10% of the Net Profit subject to interest and depreciation keeping in view the fact in earlier year's net profit as estimated by the Coordinate Bench @ 8% subject to allowance of depreciation and interest. These grounds are disposed off accordingly.
5. Ground No. 3 is against confirming addition of Rs. 48,34,995/- u/s 68.
6. The ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as made in the written brief. The ld. Counsel made the submissions as under :-
" 4.1. It is submitted that in the instant case the books have been rejected and profits have been estimated.
Without prejudice to the above, it is submitted that where books are rejected by the ld. AO, no further addition can be made by relying on the same books of accounts. Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Dulla Ram, Labour Contractor, Kotkapura [2014] 42 taxmann.com 349 (Punjab & Haryana) (Case Law Page 30) held that "....An Assessing Officer may, while considering a return of income, inspect the account books and, if satisfied, that account books do not reflect the true income of an assessee, reject the same. Account books once rejected, are ruled out of consideration and cannot be pressed into service whether by the assessee or the revenue. Thus, when account books are rejected, it would follow, as a necessary corrolary, that entries in the account books whether suspicious or not cannot be relied by the revenue or the assessee. To hold otherwise, would, in essence, render account books valid for certain purposes and invalid for others, a course impermissible in law...."
Further reliance is also placed on the following judicial pronouncements, the extracts of which have been set out for the sake of convenience:-
CIT vs. Dhiraj R Rungta [2013] 40 taxmann.com 284 (Gujarat) (Case Law Page 32) "....Head Notes - Section 145, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Method of accounting - Rejection of accounts [Additions to income based on rejected books of account] - Assessment year 2007-08 - Assessee engaged in trading of dress materials filed his return of income declaring certain income - Assessing Officer finding number of glaring mistakes, rejected books of account - He, however, made some additions by relying upon same books of account which had been rejected - Tribunal held that Assessing Officer once having rejected books of account, could not have made further additions by relying upon same books and that it would have been better if Assessing Officer had estimated a reasonable profit of assessee considering history and nature of business - Accordingly, Tribunal granted partial relief to assessee - Whether finding recorded by Tribunal being a finding of fact, no substantial question of law arose therefrom - Held, yes ..."
CIT vs. Banwari Lal Banshidhar [1998] 229 ITR 229 (ALL.) (Case Law Page 37) "....The Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer rejecting the assessee's trading results under the proviso to section 145(1) of the Act had computed the assessee's income by applying the gross profit rate of 15 per cent. on sales, as shown in the head office as well as in the branch office. The Tribunal further observed as follows:
"...The question arises whether in such a case any deduction on account of purchases is at all allowed to the assessee, though it may be true that a gross profit rate of 15 per cent. was fixed keeping in view all relevant facts including the purchases made by the assessee. Inasmuch as we are of the view that no deduction as such having been allowed to the assessee on account of purchases, we hold that no question of any disallowance on account of purchase can be made in this case under section 40A(3)"...."
Hon'ble ITAT Jaipur Bench in the case of Nardev Kumar Gupta [2013] 142 ITD 303 (Jaipur - Trib.) (Case Law Page 40) held that "...There is no dispute to the fact that the AO rejected the book results u/s 145(3) of the Act. Now the question arises as to whether any addition inter alia u 40A(3) can be made by making disallowance over and above adhoc addition made and/or when gross profit rate is applied after rejecting books results. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of G.K. Contractor (supra) has held that when estimated profit is considered after rejecting assessee's books accounts by invoking the provision of Section 145(3) of the Act, no separate addition can be made even u/s 68 of the Act, even though the assessee has failed to discharge the onus of proof in explaining the amount shown in the books of accounts as 'market outstanding'. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Pravin & Co.[2005] 274 ITR 534/144 Taxman 210 has held that once the addition has been made by increasing the gross profit rate then there is no further scope of making separate addition under different heads. The ITAT Jaipur Bench in the case of Choudhary Bros in ITA No. 1177/JP/2010 vide order dated 31-05-2010 has also taken a view that composite addition by way of application of gross profit rate and net profit rate would be sufficient to take care of such discrepancies. Similar view has also been taken by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Banwari Lal Banshidhar[1998] 229 ITR 229 wherein it was held that when income of the assessee was computed by applying the gross profit rate, there was no need to look into the provision of Section 40A(3) of the Act..."
Finally, Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of G.K. CONTRACTOR (2009) 19 DTR (Raj) 305 (Case Law Page 24) held that "...It is true that on being asked, the assessee was not able to explain these entries by producing the adequate proof to the satisfaction of the AO. However, in our considered opinion, even if the assessee has failed to discharge his onus of proof in explaining the cash credits shown in the books of account as "market outstanding", the AO having estimated the higher profit rate on total contract receipts after rejection of the books of account invoking the provisions of s. 145(3), no separate additions can be made on account of unexplained cash credit under s. 68 of the Act of 1961. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the CIT(A), confirmed by the Tribunal. Thus, no substantial question of law arises for consideration of this Court in this appeal...". Ld. CIT(A), without any reason, has ignored the above decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court which is binding in nature.
Ld. CIT(A) misplaced his reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Devi Prasad Vishwanath (Supra). Hon'ble Apex Court (Case Law Page 25-27) in this case had, inter alia, observed that whether in a given case the Income-tax Officer may tax the cash credit entered in the books of account of the business, and at the same time estimate the profit must, however, depend upon the facts of each case. Therefore, the facts have to be examined before arriving at any conclusion. Ld. CIT(A) has not highlighted any fact which made him come to the conclusion that both the additions are to be made simultaneously. Also in this case of Devi Prasad Vishwanath (Supra) certain amount was deposited in the account of the assessee which was from a completely different source of income, whereas in the present case there is no inflow of funds in the accounts of the assessee also the credits belong to the same income stream for which additions have been made by the ld. AO.
In the case of the appellant, the additions made by the ld AO u/s 68 are in respect of credits which are second leg of the expenditure entries debited to the Profit and Loss Account. Once Profit and Loss Account is rejected then the second leg, in a double entry system, cannot again be added. The case of Devi Prasad Vishwanath (Supra) relied upon by the ld. CIT(A) was in respect of fresh credits and confined to Balance Sheet only as both legs of double entry were related to Balance Sheet only. Neither of the legs affected the Profit and Loss Account. Thus, the decision relied upon by the ld. CIT(A) is not applicable on the facts of the present case and is thus clearly distinguished.
Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of K.S.M. Guruswamy Nadar & Sons [1984] 19 Taxman 533 (Mad.) (Case Law Page 42-43) has distinguished, on the above lines, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Devi Prasad Vishwanath (Supra) and observed that"....We are, therefore, of the opinion that this decision also does not apply to the facts of this case. This decision will apply only if there has been an addition towards the bogus cash credit alone. But in this case, in addition to the bogus cash credits there is an addition towards the suppression of profits. In such a case as this when there are two additions, it is always open to the assessee to explain that the suppressed profits during the year has been brought in as cash credits and, therefore, one has to be telescoped into the other and there can be only one addition. The position that the assessee is entitled to claim that both the additions should be telescoped into one in such a situation is clear from the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad [1969] 72 ITR 194 . The facts in that case are more or less similar to the facts in this case. In the case before the Supreme Court, there were two additions, namely, one towards the suppressed business profits and the other towards the bogus cash credits. The Supreme Court first held that:
"There is nothing in law which prevents the Income-tax Officer in an appropriate case in taxing both the cash credits, the nature and source of which is not satisfactorily explained, and the business income estimated by him under section 13 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, after rejecting the books of account of the assessee as unreliable." (p. 194) The Supreme Court, however, proceeded to say that:
"Where there is an unexplained credit, it is open to the Income-tax Officer to hold that it is income of the assessee, and no further burden lies on the Income-tax Officer to show that that income is from any particular source. It is for the assessee to prove that, even if the cash credit represents income, it is income from a source which has already been taxed.'' (p. 194) As per the decision of the Supreme Court, it is open to the assessee to prove that the cash credits came from the suppressed profits towards which an addition has already been made and, therefore, there should be telescoping of one with the other....."
Ld. AO, estimated a NP Rate of 12.88% on the basis of the material and consumption ratio. Whereas, if the current addition u/s 68 is considered, it would result into NP rate shooting up to 17.88% which is not only contradictory to the NP rate estimated by the ld. AO, but will also be against the NP rates upheld by the Hon'ble ITAT Jaipur Bench in assessee's own case.
In view of the above, additions made by the ld. AO and confirmed by ld. CIT(A) deserve to be deleted."
6.1. On the contrary, the ld. D/R supported the orders of the authorities below. He submitted that the additions made by the AO be confirmed.
6.2. We have heard rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The contention of ld. Counsel is that once the book results are rejected by invoking provisions of section 145(3) of the Act, no separate additions could be made under section 68. To strengthen his contention, the ld. Counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. G.K. Contractor (2009) 19 DTR 305 (Raj.), wherein their Lordships have held as under :-
"...It is true that on being asked, the assessee was not able to explain these entries by producing the adequate proof to the satisfaction of the AO. However, in our considered opinion, even if the assessee has failed to discharge his onus of proof in explaining the cash credits shown in the books of account as "market outstanding", the AO having estimated the higher profit rate on total contract receipts after rejection of the books of account invoking the provisions of s. 145(3), no separate additions can be made on account of unexplained cash credit under s. 68 of the Act of 1961. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the CIT(A), confirmed by the Tribunal. Thus, no substantial question of law arises for consideration of this Court in this appeal ".
The ld. Counsel also placed reliance on the decision of the Coordinate Bench rendered in the case of CIT vs. Nardev Kumar Gupta (2013) 32 taxmann.com 38 (Jaipur-Trib.) in ITA No.829/JP/2012 dated 23rd January, 2013. We find that while dealing with the issue, the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal has taken into consideration the judgment of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. G.K. Contractor (supra), judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Pravin & Co. (2005) 274 ITR 534, judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Banwari Lal Banshidhar (1998) 229 ITR 229 (All.) and decision of Coordinate Bench in the case of Choudhary Bros in ITA 1177/JP/2010 dated 31.05.2010 and decided the issue in favour of the assessee by observing in para 4.5 of its order as under :-
"...There is no dispute to the fact that the AO rejected the book results u/s 145(3) of the Act. Now the question arises as to whether any addition inter alia u 40A(3) can be made by making disallowance over and above adhoc addition made and/or when gross profit rate is applied after rejecting books results. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of G.K. Contractor (supra) has held that when estimated profit is considered after rejecting assessee's books accounts by invoking the provision of Section 145(3) of the Act, no separate addition can be made even u/s 68 of the Act, even though the assessee has failed to discharge the onus of proof in explaining the amount shown in the books of accounts as 'market outstanding'. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Pravin & Co.[2005] 274 ITR 534/144 Taxman 210 has held that once the addition has been made by increasing the gross profit rate then there is no further scope of making separate addition under different heads. The ITAT Jaipur Bench in the case of Choudhary Bros in ITA No. 1177/JP/2010 vide order dated 31-05-2010 has also taken a view that composite addition by way of application of gross profit rate and net profit rate would be sufficient to take care of such discrepancies. Similar view has also been taken by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Banwari Lal Banshidhar[1998] 229 ITR 229 wherein it was held that when income of the assessee was computed by applying the gross profit rate, there was no need to look into the provision of Section 40A(3) of the Act..."
We find force in the contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee. Therefore, respectfully following the decisions of the Coordinate Bench, supra, and also the judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT (A) thereby allowing the ground of the assessee.
7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 10/11/2016.
Sd/- Sd/-
¼foØe flag ;kno½ ( dqy Hkkjr)
(VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) ( KUL BHARAT )
ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member
Jaipur
Dated:- 10/11/2016.
Das/
vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzsf"kr@Copy of the order forwarded to:
1. The Appellant- Sh. Collector Ram Sharma, Jaipur.
2. The Respondent- The DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur.
3. The CIT(A).
4. The CIT,
5. The DR, ITAT, Jaipur
6. Guard File (ITA No. 771/JP/2012)
vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,
lgk;d iathdkj@ Assistant. Registrar
16
ITA No. 771/JP/2012
Sh. Collector Ram Sharma.