Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Rajkot 2 v. Standard Agro Engineers

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADR/TAX APPEAL NO. 1090 of 2018 ========================================================== PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RAJKOT 2VersusSTANDARD AGRO ENGINEERS ========================================================== Appearance: MR MR BHATT, SENIOR ADVOCATE with MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHIand HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.N. KARIA Date : 04/09/2018 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) 1. Revenue is in appeal against the judgment of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated 25.1.2018 raising following substantial questions of law :- 25.1.2018 raising following substantial questions of law :- “(A) Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition Rs.1,55,39,185/- made on account of gross profit of the assessee ? (B) Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.52,74,173/- on account of unexplained cash credit ? addition of Rs.52,74,173/- on account of (C) Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.1,44,674/- made on account C/TAXAP/1090/2018 ORDER of depreciation of cars and depreciation of Rs.90,109/- on guest house expenses ? of Rs.90,109/- on guest house expenses ? (D) Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition made by AO of Rs.2,55,883/- on account of membership fees and MOT charges ?”erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition made by AO of Rs.2,55,883/- on account of membership fees and MOT charges ?” 2. Question (A) pertains to the deletion made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of revised gross profit ratio. The Assessing Officer rejected the book results of the assessee and made addition at the rate of 5% of the turn over by way of profit in appeal. CIT (Appeals) reduced the same to 1.51% on the basis of past records and other relevant materials. This decision was confirmed by the Tribunal. 3. Having perused the decisions on record we do not find any reason to interfere with the CIT (Appeals) judgment. The results have passed several years in order to come to the GP rate. The Tribunal confirmed such decision. Entire issue is thus fact based. 4. Question (B) pertains to deletion and addition made by the Assessing Officer on addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained cash credit. CIT (Appeals) and Tribunal noted that the assessee had satisfactorily explained the entries. Here again no question of law arises. 5. Question (C) pertains to the addition made by the assessee by disallowing the depreciation of cars and guest-house expenses. The CIT (Appeals) and Tribunal found that the firm purchased the car was from the assessee company and were utilized by the directors. 6. Question (D) pertains to the deletion and addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of membership fees and Merchant Over Time Charges. CIT (Appeals) noted that the assessee could not produce necessary material in support of such expenditure before the Assessing Officer due to shortage of time. He noted that MOT charges were paid to the Excise Department. Thus, supporting material was placed before the CIT (Appeals) which was accepted. The Tribunal confirmed this view. No substantial question of law arises. 7. Tax appeal is dismissed. (AKIL KURESHI, J) K.K. SAIYED (B.N. KARIA, J)