SARAWATI BAI LAHOTI,GULBARGA vs. INOCOME-TAX OFFICER, GULBARGA

The assessee has raised as many as 4 grounds but the only grievance of the assessee is about addition of Rs. 321,552/- made by the A.O. by estimating the income of the assessee @ 0.7% of turnover because the books of accounts could not be produced as the same were said to be destroyed in fire.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee in spite of notice sent by RPAD and there is not even any request for adjournment and hence, this appeal is heard ex parte qua the assessee. Learned DR of the revenue supported the order of CIT (A).

I have considered the facts of the case and gone through the orders of the lower authorities. As per the order of CIT (A), it is seen that the only request of the assessee before CIT (A) was this that instead of applying rate of net profit of other persons, the N. P. rate of the assessee in past should be adopted as per which, the N. P. rate of the present year of 0.46 % is at par with N. P. rate of 0.47 % in A.Y. 2008 – 09 and is better than the N. P. rate in A. Y. 2009 – 10 of 0.39%. I find that this is not a case of the assessee that other entities in same business are also having N. P. rate at par with the rate declared by the assessee. This is also not shown by the assessee that in any earlier year, the N.P. rate declared by the assessee was accepted by the A.O. in a scrutiny assessment. Hence, I feel that there is no infirmity in the orders of the authorities below and therefore, I decline to interfere.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.