DHIMAN INDUSTRIES vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

209 I Dhiman Indus

The Asstt. Co

CORAM: H

Present M

SANJEEV P 1.

T admission of t “ t o w ( t A p ( t A w IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUN AT CHANDIGA I D stries

Vs. ommissioner of Income Tax

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Advocate fo Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing ***

RAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) The following questions of law the appeal on 08.09.2009:- “(i) Whether on the facts and in he learned ITAT has erred in law order of the CIT (A) and that to without passing a speaking order (ii) Whether on the facts and in he learned ITAT has erred in Assessing Officer whereby trad provisions of Section 145 were a (iii) Whether on the facts and in he learned ITAT has erred in Assessing Officer whereby GP without giving any basis or ref NJAB AND HARYANA ARH ITA-585-2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 05.08.2024

…Appellant

…Respondent NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH or the appellant. g Counsel for revenue.

) w were proposed at the time of n the circumstances of the case, w in reversing the well-reasoned oo without giving any basis and r on the issue involved? n the circumstances of the case, law in upholding the order of ding results were rejected and applied? n the circumstances of the case, law in upholding the order of Rate of 21.95% was applied, ferring any comparable case to f , d d , f d , f , o RAJESH KUMAR 2024.08.07 11:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh.

ITA-585-2008 a o 2.

L and submits t Court. 3.

I rate of 19.44% has not agreed be possible to the same GP the basis of c raw material the Assessing assessing the

I the assessee w Assessing Of worked out by

S Rs.46,070/- b be 25.42% ins

S assessee was Officer at Rs. out by the a 21.95% and th

[2] 8 (O&M) apply this rate and thus, sustainin of the assessee? Learned counsel for the appellan that questions No.2 and 3 need It is a case where the assessee h % on the net sales of Rs.2,35,6 d with the contentions basically o have a constant net sale for pr at the rate of 19.44%. Since th constant GP, completeness and and stock declared at the close g Officer passed an order again gross profit at the rate of 21.95% It was observed that for conveyo was Rs.44,000/- but the same wa fficer and the GP was assessed y the assessee. Similarly, for Batch, the costs w but the same was worked out at stead of 16% worked out by the Similarly, for Rope Sizer machin Rs.42,895/-, but the same was .40,480/- and arrived GP @ 26. ssessee. Hence, the total GP o hus an addition of Rs.5,89,063/- ng addition made in total income nt does not press question No.1 d to be examined jointly by this had declared gross profit at the 62,536/-. The Assessing Officer on the ground that it would not receding three years resulting in e assessee failed to substantiate correctness of consumption of e of year ending on 31.03.1997, nst the assessee on 30.03.2020, %. or machine, costs worked out by as worked at Rs.43,140/- by the d @ 21.56% instead of 20% as worked out by the assessee was Rs.43,850/- working out GP to assessee. ne, the costs worked out by the s worked out by the Assessing .40% as against 22% as worked on average was worked out to was made.

s e r t n e f , , y e s s o e g d o RAJESH KUMAR 2024.08.07 11:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh.

ITA-585-2008 4.

T overturned th case in appeal Assessing O inconformity the GP at 21.9 5.

W every aspect which power 6.

L the valuer sub upheld by the impressed and 7.

A revenue and h Officer as uph 8.

05.08.2024 rajesh

1 2

[3] 8 (O&M) The assessee carried out the e order of the Assessing Officer l taken up by the revenue and fo fficer by applying Section 1 with law. It upheld the order o 95% instead of 19.44% as declar We find that addition made is a of the matter and in terms of can be exercised by the Assessin Learned counsel for the appellan bmitted that the GP as arrived a e ITAT @ 21.95% is on much hi d do not find any reason to differ Accordingly, we answer questio hold that there is no error cause held by the ITAT. The appeal ac All pending misc. application(s)

(SANJ (

order to CIT (Appeals), who r but ITAT has re-examined the ound the assessment done by the 45 of the Act, 1961, to be f the Assessing Officer holding red by the assessee. after deliberating upon each and Section 145 of the Act, 1961, ng Officer. nt by relying upon the report of at by the Assessing Officer and igher side. However, we are not r from the order passed. ons No.2 and 3 in favour of the ed in the order of the Assessing cordingly fails and is dismissed. also stand disposed of. JEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No

o e e e g d , f d t e g

RAJESH KUMAR 2024.08.07 11:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh.