BIMAL RAVJIBHAI PATEL,SURENDRANAGAR vs. DCIT, CC-1(4), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT :

“1. The grounds of appeal mentioned hereunder are without prejudice to one another.

2. The ld. CIT(A) erred on facts as also in law rejecting ground of appeal related to validity of notice issued u/s 148 of the Income tax Act, 1961. That on facts as also in law, proceedings-initiated u/s. 147 of the Act is invalid and assessment finalized on such invalid initiation deserves to be quashed and may kindly be quashed. Bimal Ravjibhai Patel Vs. DCIT Asst. Year – 2013-14 - 2–

3. The Id. CIT(A)erred on facts as also in law in retaining addition of Rs. 10,50,528/- by estimating profit at the 12% on alleged on money receipt of Rs.87,54,402/- on sale of plots. The addition retained is unjustified and deserves to be deleted, may kindly be deleted.

3. The brief issue involved in this case is that the ld. CIT(A) has determined income @ 12% on the unaccounted receipt. We find that the details pertaining to the unaccounted receipt have been impounded in the course of survey conducted u/s 133A of the Act. Based on the impounded material, the assessee has shown unaccounted income as well as the unaccounted expenditure. However, the Assessing Officer has not given any benefit of the cash expenses on the ground that the assessee has failed to provide the exact nature of cash expenses. The ld. CIT(A), after considering the submissions made by the assessee, has determined the profit @ 12%.

4. Having gone through the details of unaccounted cash, we find that the net income was Rs.22.92 lakhs and the share of the assessee was 25% which comes to Rs.5.73 lakhs. The assessee has disclosed the income of Rs.10.27 lakhs in the return of income. Keeping in view the entire facts of the case, we agree with the proposition of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that the assessee is willing to pay 6% of the gross margin instead of 12% as determined by the ld. CIT(A). On going through the entire facts of the case, we find that the proposal of the assessee can be accepted on the basis of the Bimal Ravjibhai Patel Vs. DCIT Asst. Year – 2013-14 - 3– estimation of income. Hence, the profit percentage is directed to be determined @ 6% instead of 12% as determined by the ld. CIT(A).

5. Since the issue is adjudicated on merits of the case, the grounds taken up by the assessee on the issue of 148 are not being adjudicated.