Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
Popular Search: list of goods taxed at 4% :: form 3cd :: TDS :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: VAT Audit :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: due date for vat payment :: empanelment :: VAT RATES :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: cpt :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company
« From the Courts »
  Dr. Gautam Sen vs. CCIT (Bombay High Court)
 Dr. Gautam Sen vs. CCIT (Bombay High Court)
 DCIT vs. Shivshankar R. Sharma (ITAT Mumbai)
 ACIT vs. Jawaharlal Agicha (ITAT Mumbai)
 CIT vs. M/s. D. Chetan & Co (Bombay High Court)
 Makes further amendments to Notification no. 157/90-Customs dated 28th March, 1990 regarding temporary admission under the ATA Carnet
 Appointment of Common Adjudicating Authority by DGRI - 2/2016-Customs
 ransfers Of Hon’ble Members Of The ITAT (September 2016)
 M. G. Contractors Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi)
 Haryana State Road & Bridges Development Corporation Ltd vs. CIT (P&H High Court)
 Dharamshibhai Sonani vs. DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad)

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Ghaziabad. Vs Shri Manoj Kumar Agarwal, KM-140, Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad.
January, 30th 2015
ITA No.5029/Del/2013
Asstt.Year: 2008-09

                   DELHI BENCHES `E' NEW DELHI


                       ITA NO. 5029/DEL/2013
                       ASSTT. YEAR: 2008-09

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax,    vs Shri Manoj Kumar Agarwal,
Circle-1, Ghaziabad.                   KM-140, Kavi Nagar,
(Appellant)                      (Respondent)
            Appellant by: Shri Harish Sachdeva, CA
        Respondent by: Shri Gunjan Prashad, CIT

                            O R D E R


       This appeal has been preferred by the revenue against the order of

the CIT(A) Ghaziabad dated 11.06.2013 in Appeal No. 1278/2011-12/GZB

for AY 2008-09.

2.     The main grounds raised by the revenue in this appeal read as


              "1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the
        Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the
        addition of Rs.9,46,4511- on account of consumable stores.
        2. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.
        CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition

ITA No.5029/Del/2013
Asstt.Year: 2008-09

        of Rs.3,07,680/- out of labour charges and Rs.60,OOO/- out
        of various expenses.
        3. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.
        CIT(A) is not justified in restricting the income of the
        assessee @ 7.5% of net profit, therefore, the order of the
        CIT(A) may kindly be set-aside and order of AO may be
3. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to this appeal are that the assessee's case was picked up for scrutiny and accordingly notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were issued to the assessee. The AO completed assessment proceedings by making three disallowances viz. disallowance out of consumables stores, disallowance out of labour charges etc. and disallowance of other expenses and finalised assessment at taxable income of Rs.23,10,890 as against the returned income of Rs.9,96,755. Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal which was allowed by holding that the action of the AO rejecting books of accounts u/s 45(3) of the Act was justified and the first appellate authority following the provisions of section 44AD of the Act estimated the NP rate of the assessee at 7.5% and all the disallowances made out of various expenses separately were ordered to be deleted. Now, the aggrieved revenue is before this Tribunal with the grounds as reproduced hereinabove. 4. We have heard arguments of both the sides and carefully perused the relevant material placed on record, inter alia assessment order and 2 ITA No.5029/Del/2013 Asstt.Year: 2008-09 impugned order of the CIT(A). From careful reading of the operative part of the impugned order, we observe that the CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee with following observations and conclusion:- "All the grounds of appeal can be taken together in this case since it is a case of disallowance out of consumable store, labor charges and other expenses; all on the ground of non verifiability of the entire extent of these expenses claimed /non maintenance of bills and vouchers, which has led the A.O. to conclude that "......what it means that the books of account of the assessee are not much reliable... .." I find that it is a case where book results cannot be wholly relied upon since some of the expenses are not fully verifiable. To that extent, in my view, this is an appropriate case for application of section 145(3) of the act, rejecting the book results partly to the extent that N.P. deserves to be enhanced on estimate basis. To that aspect I do find that the extent of disallowance made is on excessive side since if the disallowances are taken into account, the resultant N.P. goes up to 13.2% which is not reasonable considering the specific business of the assessee. Certainly the presumptive rate of 8% prescribed u/s 44AD can be a very good indicator or yardstick for estimating the N.P., even if, the gross receipt of the assessee is much more than the limit of Rs. 40 Lacs. On aspect of estimate, I find that assessee has been consistently showing book results at about 5% , while the recent maximum N.P. was shown at 5.50% in asstt. year 2005-06. I hold it would do justice if assessee is assessed at a rate between 7% to 8%. Since the books have been rejected, in any case; the profit has to be estimated on best judgment basis and in my view, assessing the appellant's income @ 7.5% would be appropriate and reasonable. The A.O. is directed to assess the income of the assessee at 7.5% N.P. Subject to this, the disallowances made out of various expenses separately, are deleted ." 3 ITA No.5029/Del/2013 Asstt.Year: 2008-09 5. Ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) upheld the action of the AO rejecting books of accounts of the assessee u/s 145(3) of the Act as the book results could not be wholly relied upon since some of the major expenses were not wholly verifiable. Ld. DR further contended that presumptive NP rate prescribed u/s 44AD of the Act is 8% but the CIT(A) adopted NP rate of 7.5% to be appropriate and reasonable which is not a proper approach. However, the ld. DR fairly accepted that when the taxable income of the assessee is ordered to be estimated under presumptive NP rate prescribed u/s 44AD of the Act, then other disallowances do not survive. 6. On careful consideration of above submissions of both the sides and operative part of the impugned order as reproduced hereinabove, at the outset, we approve the conclusion of the CIT(A) that the AO was justified in application of section 145(3) of the Act rejecting the book results of the assessee. Further, we note that the CIT(A) has adopted presumptive NP rate by taking recourse to section 44AD of the Act and estimated the income of the assessee at 7.5% which is a reasonable and justified approach. We may also point out that when revenue authorities proceed to estimate taxable income of the assessee on presumptive basis u/s 44AD of the Act, then no further deduction u/s 32 to 38 of the Act is allowable under sub- section (2) of section 44AD of the Act. Therefore, we are inclined to hold that the CIT(A) was right in adopting presumptive NP rate of 7.5% and 4 ITA No.5029/Del/2013 Asstt.Year: 2008-09 consequently other disallowances and additions made thereunder do not survive and deserve to be deleted. Thus, we are unable to see any ambiguity, perversity or any other valid reason to interfere with the impugned order and we uphold the same. Accordingly, ground no. 1, 2 and 3 of the revenue are dismissed. 7. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 27.1.2015. Sd/- Sd/- (G.D. AGRAWAL) (CHANDRAMOHAN GARG) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DT. 27th January, 2015 `GS' Copy forwarded to:- 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. C.I.T.(A) 4. C.I.T. 5. DR By Order Asstt. Registrar 5
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Wholesale Silver Jewelry

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions