Action Electricals v. Dy. CIT

258 ITR 188High Court2002#4222 most cited

What is Action Electricals v. Dy. CIT authority for?

Past trading history is a reliable guideline for making or not making an estimation or addition to income. The Assessing Officer must provide comparable cases to justify any estimation or addition.

28

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Action Electricals v. Dy. CIT · past history of assessee · estimation of income · addition to income · comparable case · Assessing Officer · deletion of addition · appreciation of evidence

Also reported as

132 Taxmann 640

Sections most often in play

Section 144BSection 145(3)Section 37Section 132Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

Issues it is cited on

section 115besection 256(1)section 256section 80ib(10)project completion methodon money receiptsection 145(2)section 18section 192section 80ibdumb documentssection 44a

Judgments citing Action Electricals v. Dy. CIT

RADHAKISHAN BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

ITA 695/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT
Section 139Section 144Section 147rSection 148Section 148ASection 194CSection 251Section 68

…bdul Rehman and Bros. v. CIT [1994] 210 ITR 406/76 Taxman 106 (All.). 18. This court in the case of CIT v. Inani Marbles (P.) Ltd. [2009] 316 ITR 125/[2008] 175 Taxman 56 (Raj.) and also the Delhi High Court in the case of Action Electricals v. Dy. CIT [2002] 258 ITR 188/[2003] 132 Taxman 640 have observed that the past history of the assessee would be one of the reliable guidelines to make or not to make any estimation/addition. We have already referred to hereinabove that the Assessing Officer has failed to bring on record any comparable case so as to justify any estimation/addition, the addition has been delet…

RADHAKISHNA BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

ITA 694/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT
Section 139Section 144Section 147rSection 148Section 148ASection 194CSection 251Section 68

…bdul Rehman and Bros. v. CIT [1994] 210 ITR 406/76 Taxman 106 (All.). 18. This court in the case of CIT v. Inani Marbles (P.) Ltd. [2009] 316 ITR 125/[2008] 175 Taxman 56 (Raj.) and also the Delhi High Court in the case of Action Electricals v. Dy. CIT [2002] 258 ITR 188/[2003] 132 Taxman 640 have observed that the past history of the assessee would be one of the reliable guidelines to make or not to make any estimation/addition. We have already referred to hereinabove that the Assessing Officer has failed to bring on record any comparable case so as to justify any estimation/addition, the addition has been delet…

M/S KANAK VRINDAVAN RESORTS LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 543/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 37

…bdul Rehman and Bros. v. CIT [1994] 210 ITR 406/76 Taxman 106 (All.). 18. This court in the case of CIT v. Inani Marbles (P.) Ltd. [2009] 316 ITR 125/[2008] 175 Taxman 56 (Raj.) and also the Delhi High Court in the case of Action Electricals v. Dy. CIT [2002] 258 ITR 188/[2003] 132 Taxman 640 have 27 M/s Kanak Varindavan Resorts Ltd. vs. ITO observed that the past history of the assessee would be one of the reliable guidelines to make or not to make any estimation/addition. We have already referred to hereinabove that the Assessing Officer has failed to bring on record any comparable case so as to justify any es…

ASHOK KUMAR,BHOJPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, ARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 259/PAT/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Patna10 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 40

…ITA No. 259/PAT/2018 Assessment Year: 2010-2011 Ashok Kumar IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA-PATNA ‘e-COURT’, KOLKATA [Hybrid Court Hearing] Before Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ) & Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member I.T.A. No. 259/PAT/2018 Assessment Year: 2010-2011 Ashok Kumar,……………………………………... Appellant Prop. M/s. Hanuman Trading Co., Jwala Market, Near Shiv Mandir, Piro, Bhojpur, Bihar [PAN: ANTPK7205R] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………...Respondent Ward-1, Ara Appearances by: Shri Abhi Sarkar, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the assessee Shri Rupesh Agrawal, Sr. D.R., appeared on…

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, MUZAFFARPUR vs. M/S R.P.RAI ESTATE PVT LTD, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 28/PAT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna03 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Circle-1, Muzaffarpur M/S. R.P. Rai Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs 19, Goharua, Patliputra Colony, Patliputra, Patna- 800013. Pan: Aaccr 4972 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra, Jcit, Dr Respondent By : Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 19.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.04.2024 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Of The Revenue For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.06.2020 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal), Patna [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’].

For Appellant: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra, JCIT, DRFor Respondent: Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate
Section 143(2)

…e to any evidence or any material at all. There must be something more than bare suspicion to support the assessment under section 23(3)" That the same view has been expressed by the various court which are as follows:-Action Electricals v. Deputy CIT [2002] 258 ITR 188 (Delhi) and Kamal Kumar Saharia v. CIT [1995] 216 ITR 217 (Gauhati). The A.R has further relied upon the judgment of Hon. ITAT, Patna bench, in the case of assessee itself in A.Y. 2007-08, where Hon. ITAT as regards application of net profit and depreciation held as under:- "we direct the assessing officer to apply the get profjt rate of 6% on…

ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-18, NEW DELHI vs. JAGANANTH HEMCHAND JAIN, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7755/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 69C

…assessee from Kriya in the instant AY 2011-12 and from two parties of the same searched group including Kriya in other year A.Y. 2010-11. The ld. DR referred to the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Action Electricals vs. DCIT, 258 ITR 188 (Delhi) to support the case of the Revenue that Section 145(2) duly empowers the Revenue to make a best judgment assessment when he has not satisfied about the correctness or completeness of the accounts of the assessee. It was submitted that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has observed that it is not possible to categorize various types of defects…

ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-18, NEW DELHI vs. JAGANANTH HEMCHAND JAIN, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7754/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 69C

…assessee from Kriya in the instant AY 2011-12 and from two parties of the same searched group including Kriya in other year A.Y. 2010-11. The ld. DR referred to the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Action Electricals vs. DCIT, 258 ITR 188 (Delhi) to support the case of the Revenue that Section 145(2) duly empowers the Revenue to make a best judgment assessment when he has not satisfied about the correctness or completeness of the accounts of the assessee. It was submitted that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has observed that it is not possible to categorize various types of defects…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC, VAPI, VAPI vs. POONAM DEVELOPERS LLP, DADRA & NAGAR HAVELI (UT)

In the result, these Cross-Objections Nos

ITA 320/SRT/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble(Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

Section 143(3)

…rds are one of the factors which has to be considered and kept in mind while estimating the profit as has been held in the case of Delta Engineering Co reported in 186 ITR 383. Similar view have been taken in the case of Action Electricals (Delhi) reported in 258 ITR 188. The Allahabad High Court in the case of Shyam Bidi Works (Appeal No.64 of 2005 vide judgement dated 18th July 2014) has approved the action of the authorities wherein the rate of profit accepted in earlier years was adopted. Further it is the net profit and net income which has to be added and not the gross profit since indirect expenses are als…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC, VAPI, VAPI vs. POONAM DEVELOPERS LLP, DADRA & NAGAR HAVELI (UT)

In the result, these Cross-Objections Nos

ITA 319/SRT/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble(Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

Section 143(3)

…rds are one of the factors which has to be considered and kept in mind while estimating the profit as has been held in the case of Delta Engineering Co reported in 186 ITR 383. Similar view have been taken in the case of Action Electricals (Delhi) reported in 258 ITR 188. The Allahabad High Court in the case of Shyam Bidi Works (Appeal No.64 of 2005 vide judgement dated 18th July 2014) has approved the action of the authorities wherein the rate of profit accepted in earlier years was adopted. Further it is the net profit and net income which has to be added and not the gross profit since indirect expenses are als…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC, VAPI, VAPI vs. POONAM DEVELOPERS LLP, DADRA & NAGAR HAVELI (UT)

In the result, these Cross-Objections Nos

ITA 318/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble(Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

Section 143(3)

…rds are one of the factors which has to be considered and kept in mind while estimating the profit as has been held in the case of Delta Engineering Co reported in 186 ITR 383. Similar view have been taken in the case of Action Electricals (Delhi) reported in 258 ITR 188. The Allahabad High Court in the case of Shyam Bidi Works (Appeal No.64 of 2005 vide judgement dated 18th July 2014) has approved the action of the authorities wherein the rate of profit accepted in earlier years was adopted. Further it is the net profit and net income which has to be added and not the gross profit since indirect expenses are als…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC, VAPI vs. M/S. M POONAM DEVELOPERS, VALSAD

In the result, these Cross-Objections Nos

ITA 286/SRT/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble(Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

Section 143(3)

…rds are one of the factors which has to be considered and kept in mind while estimating the profit as has been held in the case of Delta Engineering Co reported in 186 ITR 383. Similar view have been taken in the case of Action Electricals (Delhi) reported in 258 ITR 188. The Allahabad High Court in the case of Shyam Bidi Works (Appeal No.64 of 2005 vide judgement dated 18th July 2014) has approved the action of the authorities wherein the rate of profit accepted in earlier years was adopted. Further it is the net profit and net income which has to be added and not the gross profit since indirect expenses are als…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC, VAPI vs. M/S. M POONAM DEVELOPERS, VALSAD

In the result, these Cross-Objections Nos

ITA 285/SRT/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble(Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

Section 143(3)

…rds are one of the factors which has to be considered and kept in mind while estimating the profit as has been held in the case of Delta Engineering Co reported in 186 ITR 383. Similar view have been taken in the case of Action Electricals (Delhi) reported in 258 ITR 188. The Allahabad High Court in the case of Shyam Bidi Works (Appeal No.64 of 2005 vide judgement dated 18th July 2014) has approved the action of the authorities wherein the rate of profit accepted in earlier years was adopted. Further it is the net profit and net income which has to be added and not the gross profit since indirect expenses are als…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC, VAPI vs. M/S. M POONAM DEVELOPERS, VALSAD

In the result, these Cross-Objections Nos

ITA 284/SRT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble(Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

Section 143(3)

…rds are one of the factors which has to be considered and kept in mind while estimating the profit as has been held in the case of Delta Engineering Co reported in 186 ITR 383. Similar view have been taken in the case of Action Electricals (Delhi) reported in 258 ITR 188. The Allahabad High Court in the case of Shyam Bidi Works (Appeal No.64 of 2005 vide judgement dated 18th July 2014) has approved the action of the authorities wherein the rate of profit accepted in earlier years was adopted. Further it is the net profit and net income which has to be added and not the gross profit since indirect expenses are als…

DCIT 1(1), INDORE vs. M/S MAA UMIYA AGRITECH PVT. LTD. , INDORE

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 89/IND/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore08 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanidcit 1(1) M/S. Maa Umiya Agritech Pvt. Ltd. Indore 119, A.B. Road, Aloo Pyaj Mandi, Vs. Indore (Appellant / (Revenue) (Assessee) Pan: Aabcn8230F Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ar Date Of Hearing 11.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 08.06.2023

Section 12ASection 138Section 144Section 145

…and Sons Dairy Farm v. CIT [2002] 257 ITR 764 (Mad): International Forest Co v. CIT [1975] 101 ITR 721 (J&K): M. Durai Raj v. CIT [1972] 83 ITR 484 (Ker); Ramchandra Ramnivas v. State of Orissa [1970] 25 STC 501 (Orissa Action Electricals v. Deputy CII [2002] 258 ITR 188 (Delhi) and Kamal Kumar Saharia v. CIT [1995] 216 ITR 217 (Gauhati) indicate that the AO is not fettered by any technical rules of evidence and pleadings, and he is entitled to act on material which are not acceptable in evidence in a count of law, but while making the assessment under the principles of best judgment. the Income-tax Officer is no…

BASANT GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 63/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 44A

…aid settled legal position and in this regard we draw strength from the decisions of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Inani Marbles (P) Ltd. (2009) 316 ITR 125 (Raj.) and also Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Action Electricals (2002) 258 ITR 188 (Delhi) wherein in both the above cases it has been categorically held that the past history of the assessee would be one of the reliable guidelines to make or not to make any estimation/addition and on this aspect our stand also fortified with the decision of Coordinate Bench of the ITAT Jaipur in the case of Swarna Ganga Jewellers vs. ACIT in…

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VAPI, VAPI vs. POONAM DEVELOPERS, VALSAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 27/SRT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.15/Srt/2021 & 27/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S. Poonam Developers, Vs. The Acit, Central Circle-1, 402, Amar Chambers, Opp. Lal Vapi. School, Station Road, Valsad- 396001. (Assessee) (Revenue) The Acit, Central Circle-1, Vs. M/S. Poonam Developers, Vapi. 402, Amar Chambers, Opp. Lal School, Station Road, Valsad-396001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaxfm9582G (Revenue) (Assessee) Shri Hardik Vora, Ar Assessee By Shri Sita Ram Meena, Sr. Dr Respondent By 11/02/2022 Date Of Hearing 06/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 68

…ds are one of the factors which has to be considered and kept in mind while estimating the profit as has been held in the case of Delta Engineering Co. reported in 186 ITR 383. Similar view have been taken in the case of Action Electricals (Delhi) reported in 258 ITR 188. The AI1ahabad High Court in the case of Shyam Bidi Works (Appeal No. 64 of 2005 vide judgement dated 18th July 2014) has approved the action of the authorities wherein the rate of profit accepted in earlier years was adopted. Further it is the net profit and net income which has to be added and not the gross profit since indirect expenses are al…

POONAM DEVELOPERS,VALSAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VAPI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 15/SRT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.15/Srt/2021 & 27/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S. Poonam Developers, Vs. The Acit, Central Circle-1, 402, Amar Chambers, Opp. Lal Vapi. School, Station Road, Valsad- 396001. (Assessee) (Revenue) The Acit, Central Circle-1, Vs. M/S. Poonam Developers, Vapi. 402, Amar Chambers, Opp. Lal School, Station Road, Valsad-396001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaxfm9582G (Revenue) (Assessee) Shri Hardik Vora, Ar Assessee By Shri Sita Ram Meena, Sr. Dr Respondent By 11/02/2022 Date Of Hearing 06/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 68

…ds are one of the factors which has to be considered and kept in mind while estimating the profit as has been held in the case of Delta Engineering Co. reported in 186 ITR 383. Similar view have been taken in the case of Action Electricals (Delhi) reported in 258 ITR 188. The AI1ahabad High Court in the case of Shyam Bidi Works (Appeal No. 64 of 2005 vide judgement dated 18th July 2014) has approved the action of the authorities wherein the rate of profit accepted in earlier years was adopted. Further it is the net profit and net income which has to be added and not the gross profit since indirect expenses are al…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KOTA vs. SHIV EDIBLES LTD., KOTA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 479/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Us.

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 145(3)

…reafter the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in para 18 of the above decision, referred to the case of CIT v. Inani Marbles (P.) Ltd. [2009] 316 ITR 125/ [2008] 175 Taxman 56 (Raj.) and also the Delhi High Court in the case of Action Electricals v. Dy. CIT [2002] 258 ITR 188/ [2003] 132 Taxman 640 and thereafter observed that: 8 Shiv Edibles Ltd, Kota Vs. ACIT, Kota “We have already referred to hereinabove that the Assessing Officer has failed to bring on record any comparable case so as to justify any estimation/addition….” 10. It was submitted that similar is the view taken by the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in…

SHRI MANOJ KUMAR JOHARI,SIKAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, SIKAR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 535/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 535/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year: 2013-14 Manoj Kumar Johari, Cuke A.C.I.T. Vs. Prop. Of The Art Palace, Zee Circle-Sikar. Bhawan, Subhash Chowk, Ramgarh-Shekhawati, Sikar. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Adwpj 8870 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Vikash Rajvanshi (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 12/03/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Jaipur Dated 16/02/2018 For The A.Y. 2013-14, Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken: “1. Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & Fact In Estimating 12.86% Gp Rate On The Basis Of 5 Year’S Average Assessed Gp Rate & Sustained Gp Addition Of Rs. 20,43,900/- Without Considering Actual Gp & Even Not Considering The Actual Average Of Last 5 Year Gp. 2. The Appellant Prays Your Honor To Add, Amend Or Alter All Or Any Of The Grounds Of The Appeal On Or Before The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Vikash Rajvanshi (CA)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

…current year GP is higher, hence declared rate is correct and justified. Jurisdictional Honorable Rajasthan High Court has decided in the case of Inani Marble Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 316 ITR 125 (Raj.) and Hon. Delhi High Court in case of Action Electricals (2002) 258 ITR 188 (Del) held that past history of the assessee would be one of the reliable guideline to make or not to make any addition. Hence considering the past history average GP of 5 years is 12.15% which is nearer to current year GP and better of 3 year GP of 8.48% which is less than current year declared GP rate of 11.75%. 1.16 LD AO has wrongly rejected…

M/S. BALAR EXPORTS,,SURAT vs. THE DY.CIT.,CENT. CIRCLE-1,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3189/AHD/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No’S.3188 & 3189/Ahd/2011 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 1. Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. 1.M/S. Balar Exports, Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Balar Building, Opp. Surat. Panchratna Tower, Lambe Hanuman Road, Surat-395 006. [Pan: Aacfb 4703 H] 2.M/S. Balar Exports, 2. Deputy Commissioner Of Balar Building, Opp. Income Tax, Central Panchratna Tower, Lambe Circle-1, Surat. Hanuman Road, Surat-395 006. [Pan: Aacfb 4703 H] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah - Ca Shri Srinivas T. Bidari - Cit(D.R.) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By 11.12.2019 सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On: 04.02.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per O. P. Meena, Am: 1. The Above Cross Appeals By The Revenue & Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Ii, Ahmedabad (In Short “The Cit (A)”) Dated 19.10.2011 For The Assessment Year 2008-09, Which In Turn Has Arisen From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Dated 31.12.2010 Of Balar Exports V. Dcit-Cc-1-Surat & Vice- Versa /I.T.A.No’S. 3189 & 3188/Ahd/2011/A.Y.2008-09 Page 2 Of 49

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 69

…ding of registers and the papers related to diamond manufacturing business, discrepancies in stock and Appellant firm admitted additional income of Rs. 5 crores. The AO cited decision of Hon`ble Delhi High Court in the case of Action Electrical v. DCIT [2002] 258 ITR 188 (Delhi) held that books of accounts cannot be relied to be complete and liable to be rejection, as the same does not give correctness and completeness to the accounts. Therefore, the CIT (A) respectfully following the ratio of Hon'ble Delhi High Court upheld the rejection of books of accounts. 47. Being aggrieved, the Assessee has filed this app…

Showing 1–20 of 28 · Page 1 of 2