Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (1.05 seconds)
Documents citing Income Tax Officer vs Narmada Cement Co. Ltd. on 17 April, 2003

Tanuja Bindra, New Delhi vs Assessee

3. It is submitted by the Ld.AR of the assessee that books were not rejected by the AO and hence the g.p. declared by the assessee cannot be disturbed. Regarding the decision of Ld.CIT(A) in the case of Moet's Bar be Que for AYs 2004-05 & 05-06, which has been followed by the CIT(A) in the present case as per para 2.3.1 of his order, it was submitted that in those two years of that assessee, there were material found regarding suppression of sales. In support of this contention, he submitted a copy of the order of the CIT(A) in the case for those two years of that assessee. For AY 2004-05, our attention was drawn to page 3 of the order of the CIT(A) wherein it is noted by him that the sales as per seized paper were coming to Rs.27.04 lakh whereas in the books of account, sales were recorded only to the extent of Rs.15.03 lakh and hence there was un- recorded sales of Rs.12 lakh. Similarly, our attention was drawn to page 2 of the order of the CIT(A) in AY 2005-06 wherein it is noted by the CIT(A) that the assessee firm had included the unaccounted sales of Rs.20.26 lakh for AY 2005-06. It is submitted that in the present case, there is no allegation regarding any unaccounted sales and in fact no addition was made on account of any unaccounted sales and hence the decision in those cases has no bearing in the present case. Reliance was placed on the Tribunal decision rendered in the case of ITO vs. Narmada Cement Co. Ltd., reported in 81 TTJ 955 in support of this contention that when no mistake is pointed out in the books and the books were not rejected, no addition can be made on estimation basis.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1