Case Law Details
Sheo Shakti Coke Industries Vs ACIT (ITAT Kolkata)
From the perusal of above finding of the Ld. CIT(A), we find that he has lucidly dealt with all the facts pertaining to discrepancies noticed in the financials of the assessee-firm and has also referred to various charts depicting the profitability of the assessee-firm in preceding years vis-à-vis other related concerns of the same group and operating in the same field and even the same area. We find merit in the finding of Ld. CIT(A) rejecting the book results and invoking the provision of section 145(3) of the Act and this action of the Ld. CIT(A) has also not been challenged before us by the assessee by raising a specific ground.
Further the ld. counsel for the assessee miserably failed to controvert the finding of Ld. CIT(A) by placing any material in its support. The only argument made by ld. counsel for the assessee is that the assessee-firm is consistently being allowed to the deduction u/s 80IC of the Act but had not said anything about the correctness of profit earned during the year.
The case relied by the ld. counsel for the assessee in the case of M/s. Goodcare Pharma Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is also not be of any benefit to assessee since the fact are not similar and more specifically the issue of rejection of book results was not before the coordinate bench of Kolkata in the case of M/s. Goodcare Pharma Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and, therefore, it shall not be applicable on the instant issue raised before us.
We, therefore, under the given facts and circumstances of the case and detailed enquiry conducted by the Ld. CIT(A), which remained uncontroverted by the ld. counsel for the assessee find no reason to interfere in the finding of Ld. CIT(A) applying the gross profit rate of 40% on the turnover disclosed by the assessee as against the gross profit rate of 57.01% disclosed by the assessee and accordingly has rightly charged the difference of the profit that is 17.01% (57.01% less 40%) on the gross turnover for the year as “Income from other sources”. Accordingly, ground no. 2, 3 & 4 raised by the assessee are dismissed. Appeal of the assessee for A.Y. 2013-14 is dismissed.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
