Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8.2. It is not in dispute that the gross profit declared by the assessee during the year under appeal is much less than that declared in the immediately preceding asst year. The assessee cannot purchase and sell except at market determined prices. The only leeway is to sell below the market price to undercut the others to raise turnover and keep competition at bay so as to achieve the benefit in the long run. In the process, the gross profit has to be squeezed so that reference to an earlier year involving far less turnover would only result in absurdity. The turnover of the assessee for the preceding year was only Rs. 3,45,33,965/- whereas for the impugned assessment year it was Rs. 23,55,85,195/-. It was argued before the ld. CITA that the assessee had to increase its sales by undercutting the market price for a very good reason as it was in debt to the bank and all efforts had to be made to increase the net profit to service the debt. But even after such attempts, the assessee had to suffer the extreme prejudice of being taken over by the bank. We find that this is a telling instance of the assessee failing in its efforts to achieve its objects through its actions. We find that the ld CITA had categorically stated that the turnover and the direct expenses incurred by the assessee Sitalamata Oil Mill Pvt. Ltd. AY 2009-10 has not been disputed by the Ld. AO. We also find that the trading account cannot be interfered with unless purchases are proved to be bogus or overstated or sales are understated. In the instant case, no such stance has been taken by the ld. AO. No anomalies were found by the ld. AO on the purchases, sales and closing stock declared by the assessee. The Ld. AR filed a comparison of the trading account for the years ended 31.3.2009 (year under appeal) and that of 31.3.2008 (preceding year). From the same it could be seen that the gross profit during the year had reduced by 34.06%; consumption to the percentage of turnover had increased by 34.95% and direct expenses had decreased by 0.89% in the year ended 31.3.2009 when compared to that of the immediately preceding year. In these circumstances, adoption of preceding year's gross profit would only result in absurdity as rightly pointed out by the ld. CITA. We find that the assessee had declared profit at 8.42% in its return based on audited data. We find under these circumstances, the revenue had to place the complete reliance on the audited financial statements for the purpose of determination of total income. The ld. CITA had estimated the total income at 10% of turnover. However , we, in our considered opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the case, especially considering the state of affairs in which assessee is placed, feel that adoption of profit at the rate of 9% of turnover would meet the ends of justice. The ld. AO is directed to adopt 9% of turnover as income of the assessee as against 42.48%. Accordingly the grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed and cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed.