DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR vs. M/S CENTRAL CABLES LTD , NAGPUR

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2013-

2014, arise against CIT(A)-2, Nagpur Nagpur's Order in Appeal

No.CIT(A)-2/69/2016-17/ITBA No.10199, dated 21.07.2020,

in proceedings u/s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short

“the Act”).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

grounds in the instant appeal :

2 ITA.No.105/NAG./2020

made by estimating Gross profit @ 8.63% of turnover inspite of

non production of the records before the AO by the Assessee. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law,

the Ld. CIT(A)-2, Nagpur was justified in deleting the addition

made on account of disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Income

Tax Act, 1961 inspite of the fact that no documents were

produced before the AO for non deduction of TDS on interest

payment. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law,

the Ld. CIT(A)-2, Nagpur was justified in deleting the addition

made by disallowance of various expenditure amounting to

Rs.1,36,03,446/-, inspite of the fact that principal of Res

Judicata is not applicable in the tax matters which was held in

the case of Radhasoami Satsang Vyas by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court. 4. Any other grounds of appeal at the time of hearing of the appeal.”

discussion reversing the assessment findings re-estimating it’s

profits, reads as under :

3 ITA.No.105/NAG./2020

4 ITA.No.105/NAG./2020

5 ITA.No.105/NAG./2020

vehement rival stands against and in support of the CIT(A)'s

impugned lower appellate findings deleting the impugned

addition. I find no merit in the Revenue’s stand. This is for the

precise reason that the Assessing Officer’s assessment herein

dated 28.03.2016 had compared the assessee’s impugned

book results vis-à-vis the corresponding figures in assessment

years 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 and adopted 8.63% gross

profit rate coming to average thereof, for making the addition

herein of Rs.2,01,56,810/-. It has already come on record from

the CIT(A)'s impugned detailed discussion that the assessee’s

manufacturing unit was closed from October, 2013 resulting

in the decline of not only in it’s profit rate but also a spike in

6 ITA.No.105/NAG./2020

the loss figures. Be that as it may, this is indeed coupled with

the fact that the learned assessing authority had not found

any other defect in assessee’s part in declaration of it’s book

results of the relevant previous year. And that the CIT(A)'s

order for A.Y.2014-15 on the very issue has not been

disturbed till date. Faced with this situation, it is deemed

appropriate that although the Revenue’s impugned first and

foremost substantive ground does not deserve to be accepted

in principle, it would indeed be in the larger interest of justice

that a lump sum addition of Rs.2 lakhs only would be just and

proper in these peculiar facts and circumstances. I order

accordingly. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.

This Revenue’s first and foremost substantive ground stands

partly accepted in above terms.

grounds seeking to revive sec.40(a)(ia) and other expenditure

disallowance(s) involving varying sums; I find no merit therein

in light of Indwell Constructions vs. CIT [1998] 232 ITR 776

(AP) that the same would not be applicable once the

corresponding book results already stand rejected. It is

reiterated here that I have already estimated the assessee’s

income declared in preceding paragraph and therefore, these

twin substantive grounds must fail. Ordered accordingly.

7 ITA.No.105/NAG./2020

terms.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 15.05.2024.

Sd/- [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 15th May, 2024

VBP/-

Copy to

//By Order//

//True Copy //

Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Pune Benches, Pune.