Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"In so far as fall in GP from 10.62% to 8.8% is concerned, it is submitted that the sales of assessee have increased from Rs. 4,94,11,685/- to Rs. 9,92,48,746 and thus in order to increase the sales, margin of GP has slightly decreased in as much as the turnover is roughly doubled. Thus, there is full justification for a slight fall in GP."

The A.O. rejected the explanation of the assessee and observed that the turnover for A.Y. 2008-09 has gone up twice(nearly thrice) as compared to preceding year turnover i.e. for A.Y. 2007-08, the GP rate had also gone up from 9.82% to 10.62%. The A.O. analysed the purchases as compared with the sales in the following way:-

09. The GP ratio shown by the assessee during the preceding year's and current year is as follows:-

Asst. Year Total turnover Gross profit Rate of GP 2007-08 Rs. 1,71,60,423/- Rs. 16,84,935/- 9.82% 2008-09 Rs. 4,94,11,686/- Rs. 52,51,573 10.62% 2009-10 Rs. 9,92,48,745/- Rs. 88,12,530/- 8.88% The assessee has submitted before the AO that the reason for fall in GP ratio was that the sales of assessee have increased from Rs. 4,94,11,685/- in AY 2008-09 to Rs. 9,92,48,746 in AY 2009-10 and thus in order to increase the sales, margin of GP has slightly decreased in as much as the turnover is roughly doubled . The assessee did not submitted details of monthly purchase and sale before the AO and also submitting part information called for by AO and that too only at the fag end when the assessment was getting time barred, thereby preventing proper enquiry and examination by the AO. Under these afore-stated circumstances, the AO made an adhoc addition of Rs. 2,50,000/- on estimate basis on account of low GP ratio to the income of the assessee. While before the ld. CIT(A) during appellate proceedings an altogether different stand was taken by the assessee, it is contended by the 15 ITA 4671/Mum/2014 assessee that the difference is due to exclusion of VAT differential from the purchases and sales which is taken to separate VAT account . The ld. CIT(A) granted relief to the assessee by deleting additions made by the AO by accepting contention of the assessee that the difference in the amount of purchase and sales were basically due to accounting in the VAT which is taken to separate account. Thus altogether different plea is taken by the assessee before learned CIT(A) and additional evidences were filed before learned CIT(A) as is emerging from records as well arguments of learned DR, which additional evidences were admitted by learned CIT(A) without forwarding the same to the AO for examination/verification by the AO and no remand report was called by learned CIT(A) from the A.O. which is in clear breach of Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules,1962. The Rule 46A of the 1962 Rules is not an empty formality and cannot be given a complete go bye by learned CIT(A) in a lighter manner as fresh material before learned CIT(A) has to stood the test of examination and verification by the AO who is both an investigator and adjudicator . In our considered view keeping in view factual matrix of the case, this matter need to be set aside to the file of the AO for de-