Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3.1 One of the distinguishing feature this year which must be considered in the matter of fair estimation is that the turnover this year has decreased by more than 33% as compared to last year (i.e. from Rs. 54.72 crore to Rs. 36.39 crore) and 12% as compared to the Shri Harbans Lal Sethi vs. Addl. CIT, Range-2, Kota .

year before last (i.e. from Rs. Rs 41.14 crore) which strongly justify the fall in NP rate in as much as it is a matter of common knowledge there are various fixed type of expenditure viz salary and wages to the permanent laborers and administrative staff, minimum light, water and electricity charges, telephone and other expenses, annual license fees etc and so on which, the businessman/contractor has to pay whether he runs the business or not and irrespective of the facts of the receipts increase or decrease.

06. It is noted that the assessee has declared better results even if NP rate Shri Harbans Lal Sethi vs. Addl. CIT, Range-2, Kota .

after deductions is considered. It is seen that the NP rate (after all deductions) declared this year was 5.46% only as against 6.13% last year and thus, there was fall of 0.67%. However, it is noticed that the assessee has declared receipts of Rs.36.39 Crores only this year as against Rs.54.73 Crores last year and thus, the same has drastically came down by 33%. It is a fact that despite decrease in the turnover, the assessee has to bear certain fixed expenditure and the depreciation allowance which affects the ultimate NP rate (after all deductions). It is noticed that the amount of depreciation of this year has increased by Rs.55 Lacs i.e. Rs.1.14 Crores from last year to Rs.1.69 Crores this year. This extra claim of deprecation has contributed to a fall of 2.56% NP rate. It is also noted that AO has not provided any basis of applying 7% (after all the deductions) or 13.08% (subject to interest & depreciation ). He neither referred past history nor any comparable case. Considering the totality of facts & circumstances of the case, we find that that the addition of Rs. 55,93,509/- was rightly reduced by the ld. CIT(A) to Rs.10 lacs which is confirmed. Thus the solitary ground of the Revenue is dismissed. 16.1 The Revenue has raised the solitary ground as under:-