Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. Learned D.R. strongly supported the order of the Assessing Officer and reiterated the observations made in the assessment order dated 28/11/2011.

11. In his rival submissions, learned counsel for the assessee strongly supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and further submitted that non- maintenance of stock register cannot be a criteria to make adhoc trading addition, therefore, Ld. CIT(A) rightly deleted the impugned addition.

12. 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 there was a tremendous increase in the turnover of the assessee which increased from Rs. 5 Crore in the earlier year to Rs. 7 Crore in the year under consideration and there was a slight decline in the gross profit which came down to 21.06% in the year under consideration in comparison to 24.74% in the earlier year, the increase in the turnover may be a reason for slight decrease in the gross profit rate. In the present case, the Assessing Officer while making the adhoc addition did not point out any inflated purchases or suppressed sales. He also did not doubt about the expenses incurred by the assessee even the books of accounts maintained in regular course of business were not rejected by invoking the provisions of section 145(3) of the Act. We therefore, do not see any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. Accordingly, we do not see any merit in this ground of the Departmental appeal.