RADHESHYAM TOSHNIWAL,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 44(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the impugned order of the CIT(A) to submit that the ld. CIT(A) has not given any basis to estimate the profit @ 20% of the sales. The only reasoning given by the CIT(A) is that the assessee did not furnish the complete documentary evidence with respect to sale/purchase transaction. However, the ld. counsel for the assessee has brought to our attention to paper-book to submit that the assessee Assessment Year: 2017-18 Radheshyam Toshniwal has duly furnished all the requisite documents not only before the Assessing Officer but also before the ld. CIT(A). Even, the audited tax report was also furnished before the Assessing Officer though not along with the return but during the assessment proceedings. Even the assessee had also furnished the details of the gross profit/net profit of earlier years and demonstrated before the ld. CIT(A) that the gross profits during the year were at 4.36%, which were more than that of earlier year. The ld. counsel has further submitted that even the books of accounts have not been rejected and that the action of the ld. CIT(A) in estimating the gross profit @ 20% without any basis, was not justified.

The ld. DR, on the other hand, has relied upon the findings of the CIT(A).

Considering the rival submissions, we find that the action of the ld. CIT(A) in estimating the gross profit @ 20% without giving any basis and without even considering any comparative data, without rejecting the books of account and even ignoring the gross profits of the past years, cannot be held to be justified. In view of this, the action of the ld. CIT(A) in estimating the gross profit @ 20% is set aside and the Assessing Officer is directed to accept the gross profit/net profit as shown by the assessee in the books of accounts.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed.