Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

A bare perusal of above facts would reveal that for A.Y.2009-10, Ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition made by AO in view of GP rate declared by assessee in preceding years, whereas in captioned A.Y., Ld. CIT(A) has relied upon the order of Hon'ble ITAT brushing aside the fact that assessee has already declared the GP at 6.76% which is very much in parity with preceding years, thus the reliance placed is misplaced more particularly when the G.P. upheld in A.Y. 2009-10 was only 4.25%. Besides relying upon the order of Hon'ble ITAT in M/s Kiran Infra Engineers Ltd. vs. ACIT, Circle-4, Jaipur A.Y. 2009-10, Ld. CIT(A) has given no basis for upholding the G.P. rate of 8%. In view of above facts, it is prayed that GP rate declared by assessee may please be accepted and addition of Rs.1,41,721/- may please be deleted. 4.2 The ld DR is heard who has relied upon the order of the ld CIT(A). 4.3 We have heard the rival contentions and pursued the material available on record. The AO has not specified the basis for adopting 8% G.P rate which is apparently followed as in the past years. If we look at the past history in respect of appellant's manufacturing activity, the appellant has reported a G.P rate of 6.76% on turnover of Rs 114,52,126 which is better than G.P rate of 6.06% on turnover of Rs 1,38,80,048 reported during AY 2011-12. Similarly, for AY 2010-11, on turnover of Rs 2,04,89,004, the appellant has reported a G.P rate of 5.92%. The trend which is emerging is that though the turnover of the appellant has decreased during the year, it is able to report a G.P rate of 6.76% which is better than past years. Going by the past history of the case, we therefore delete the addition of Rs.1,41,721/- in respect of manufacturing activity. Ground no. 2 of the assessee's appeal is thus allowed.