Arman Enterprise,, Surat v. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 3(1)(2),, Surat

ITA 361/SRT/2017 | 2010-2011
Pronouncement Date: 31-08-2021 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 36125614 RSA 2017
Assessee PAN AAOFA1780B
Bench Surat
Appeal Number ITA 361/SRT/2017
Duration Of Justice 3 year(s) 8 month(s) 20 day(s)
Appellant Arman Enterprise,, Surat
Respondent Income Tax Officer, Ward- 3(1)(2),, Surat
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 31-08-2021
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 31-08-2021
Assessment Year 2010-2011
Appeal Filed On 11-12-2017
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 361 TO 363/SRT/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2010-11 2011-12 & 2012-13) ( VIRTUAL HEARING IN VIRTUAL COURT) ARMAN ENTERPRISE A/301 ROYAL RESIDENCY BEHIND CNG PUMP PARVAT PATIA MAGOB GAM SURAT-394211. [PAN : AAOFA 1780 B] VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1)(2) SURAT. APPELLANT RESPONDEDNT APPELLANT BY SHRI MEHUL R. SHA H CA RESPONDENT BY MS ANUPAMA SINGLA SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 14.07.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 31 .08 .2021 O R D E R PER PAWAN SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER : 1. THESE THREE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-3 [IN SHORT THE CIT(A)-3] SURAT DATED 29/09/2017 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2010-11 2011-12 & 2012-13. IN ALL APPEALS THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED CERTAIN COMMON GROUNDS OF APPEALS THEREFORE ALL THREE APPEALS WERE CLUBBED HEARD TOGETHER AND DECIDED BY THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER. FOR APPRECIATION OF FACTS APPEAL FOR AY.2010- 11 IS TREATED AS LEAD CASE. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 2 ITA NOS. 361 TO 363/SRT/2017 AYS.2010-11 2011-12 & 2012-13/ ARMAN ENTERPRISE 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN REJECTING BOOK RESULTS U/S 145 OF THE IT ACT 1961. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN ESTIMATING THE TOTAL SALE PROCEEDS FROM 5 FLATS AT RS.1 62 30 000/- BY TAKING SALE CONSIDERATION OF EACH FLAT AT RS.32 46 000/- INSTEAD OF CONSIDERING THE VALUE SHOWN IN THE SALE DEED. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN TAKING ESTIMATED PROFIT AT 15% ON ESTIMATED TURNOVER AND THEN ALLOWING ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE INTEREST AND REMUNERATION TO PARTNERS INSTEAD OF ESTIMATING PROFIT AT 11.33% BEING ACTUAL PROFIT RATIO OF THE PROJECT ON ACTUAL TURNOVER AND THEN ALLOWING INTEREST AND REMUNERATION TO PARTNERS ON THE SAME. 4. IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY CIT(APPEALS) MAY PLEASE BE DELETED. 5. APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD ALTER OR DELETE ANY GROUND(S) EITHER BEFORE OR IN THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS A BUILDER AND DEVELOPER. DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE WAS DEVELOPING THE PROJECT (ROYAL RESIDENCY) HAS SHOWN TOTAL WORK IN PROGRESS (WIP). THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY.2010-11 ON 06.09.2010 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.6 51 473/-. IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN WORK IN PROGRESS OF RS.3.63 CRORE AND DECLARED GROSS PROFIT OF RS.26 48 612/- AT THE RATE OF 7.25%. THE ASSESSEES PROJECT COMPRISE OF 10 FLATS IN EACH TOWER. DURING THE ASSESSMENT THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THERE WAS A SUBSTANTIAL FALL IN GROSS 3 ITA NOS. 361 TO 363/SRT/2017 AYS.2010-11 2011-12 & 2012-13/ ARMAN ENTERPRISE PROFIT AS COMPARATIVELY TO THE PRECEDING YEAR. IN THE CURRENT YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN GROSS PROFIT AT THE RATE OF 7.25% ON WORK IN PROGRESS OF RS.3.66 CRORE AS COMPARED TO PRECEDING YEAR WHEREIN ASSESSEE DECLARED THE GROSS PROFIT AT THE RATE OF 18.58%. ON THE BASIS OF DIFFERENCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE ABNORMAL FALL IN GROSS PROFIT AT THE RATE OF 11.35%. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON FURTHER VERIFICATION OF FACT POINTED OUT THAT OUT OF 30 FLATS THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD 14 FLATS DURING THIS YEAR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO SHOW PROFIT ON SALE OF 14 FLATS AND WIP OF REMAINING 16 FLATS AS CLOSING STOCK. ON THE BASIS OF AFORESAID OBSERVATION THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AS TO WHY THE TRADING ACCOUNT BE NOT RE-CASTED. IN RESPONSE TO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE THE ASSESSEE ATTENDED THE PROCEEDING AND STATED THAT INABILITY TO RECAST THE TRADING ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUE ANOTHER SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ON 15.01.2013 AS TO WHY GROSS PROFIT RATIO SHOULD NOT BE ADOPTED AT THE RATE OF 37.51% BY TAKING A COMPARISON OF M/S. GOTHIC CONSTRUCTION SURAT (ANOTHER ASSESSEE ENGAGED IN SIMILAR BUSINESS) AND PROPOSED THE REJECTED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS REPLY THE CONTENT OF REPLY IS RECORDED IN PARA NO.5.4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN REPLY THE ASSESSEE IN SUM AND SUBSTANCE IS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE CONSTRUCTED THREE SMALL BUILDING CONSISTING OF 10 FLATS IN EACH BUILDING AT MAGOB TAL: CHORYASI DIST: SURAT. THE ASSESSEE STARTED PROJECT IN FINANCIAL 4 ITA NOS. 361 TO 363/SRT/2017 AYS.2010-11 2011-12 & 2012-13/ ARMAN ENTERPRISE YEAR 2007-08 AND PROJECT IS COMPLETED DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2011-12. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE PROJECT WAS UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND ASSESSEE HAS SOLD 14 FLATS OUT OF WHICH 8 FLATS FROM BUILDING NO.A & 6 FROM BUILDING NO. C AND NO FLATS FROM BUILDING NO. C SO FAR. THE ASSESSEE HAS FOLLOWED WORK IN PROGRESS METHOD FOR REVENUES RECOGNITION. THE WORK IN PROGRESS WAS VALUED AT MARKET RATE HENCE THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN PROFIT IN EARLIER YEAR ALSO WHEN FLATS WERE EVEN NOT SOLD OUT. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE GROSS PROFIT AND NET PROFIT RATION FOR AY.2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 AND 2011-12. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FURNISHED VARIOUS DETAILS OF MATERIAL AND OTHER EXPENSES. THE A.O. AFTER CONSIDERING THE REPLY OF ASSESSEE REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND DETERMINED THE GROSS PROFIT AT THE RATE OF 24% AND FLATS SHOWED BY ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER PREPARED THE SUMMARY OF FLAT SOLD DURING THE CURRENT YEAR. BEFORE DETERMINING OF GROSS PROFIT AT THE RATE OF 24% THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADOPTED THE VALUE OF PER FLAT AT RS.32 46 000/- ON THE BASIS OF FLAT AS SHOWN ON 10.04.2018. 3. ON APPEAL BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. THE SUBMISSIONS OF ASSESSEE ARE RECORDED IN PARA NO.6 OF THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE IN SUM AND SUBSTANCE IN ITS SUBMISSION STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN TOTAL WORK IN PROGRESS OF RS.363 75 000/- DECLARING PROFIT OF RS.26 48 612/- AT THE RATE OF 7.25% AS COMPARED PRECEDING YEAR OF RS.92 50 000/- 5 ITA NOS. 361 TO 363/SRT/2017 AYS.2010-11 2011-12 & 2012-13/ ARMAN ENTERPRISE IN GROSS PROFIT WAS RS.1718 843/- AT THE RATE OF 18.58%. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COMPARISON ON THE GROSS PROFIT OF EARLIER YEAR AND ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO RECAST THE TRADING ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED THE TRADING ACCOUNT AS REQUIRED BY ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED ANOTHER SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AS TO WHY GROSS PROFIT RATIO SHOULD NOT BE ADOPTED AT THE RATE OF 37.5%. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS DETAILED REPLY WHICH IS DULY RECORDED IN PARA NO.5.8 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOT ACCEPTED THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE AND HELD THAT THERE ARE DISCREPANCIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THE ASSESSEE ADOPTED INCORRECT METHOD OF ACCOUNTING AND REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUIRED DETAILS OF BOOKING HIRING OF FLAT WHICH WERE FURNISHED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADOPTED THE COMPARABLE GROSS PROFIT OF GOTHIC CONSTRUCTION WHICH HAS SHOWN GROSS PROFIT AT THE RATE OF 37.5%. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT GOTHIC CONSTRUCTION IS NOT COMPARABLE TO THE ASSESSEE AS THE ASSESSEE HAS MAINTAINED ITS ACCOUNT ON WORK IN PROGRESS METHOD AND OFFERED INCOME IN PRECEDING YEAR WHEN THERE WAS NO SALE WHEREAS GOTHIC CONSTRUCTION HAS OFFERED INCOME ON SALE BASIS. IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT THE PROJECT OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE COMPARABLE CASE WERE LOCATED IN DIFFERENT AREA. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER COMPARING THE DETAIL SUMMARY OF ALL FLATS SOLD DURING THE YEAR ESTIMATED GROSS PROFIT AT THE RATE OF 24%. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT GIVEN ANY 6 ITA NOS. 361 TO 363/SRT/2017 AYS.2010-11 2011-12 & 2012-13/ ARMAN ENTERPRISE WORKING AS TO HOW HE HAS ARRIVED AT GROSS PROFIT. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER STATED THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS REGISTERED BILLS AND VOUCHERS WERE PRODUCED BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH WAS EXAMINED AS ON TEST CHECK BASIS. MOST OF THE PAYMENT TO LABOURERS/EXPENSES IS MADE BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE BY MAKING TDS (THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE HAS MAINTAINED REGULARLY WHICH ARE AUDITED BY CA UNDER SECTION 44AB AND NO DEFECTS WERE POINTED OUT BY THE AUDITOR). BEFORE REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT POINTED OUT SERIOUS DEFECT. IN CASE OF BILL DOES NOT FEASIBLE AND PRACTICABLE TO MAINTAIN THE STOCK REGISTERED. THE MAINTENANCE OF STOCK REGISTER CANNOT BE FATAL TO THE REVENUE WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE PROFIT ON THE WIP CERTIFIED BY THE ARCHITECT ON THE BASIS OF THE PERCENTAGE COMPLETION METHOD. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER STATED THAT THEY HAVE SHOWN REASONABLE PROFIT AND FOLLOWED PROPER METHOD OF CLOSING STOCK CONSISTENTLY AND NO ADDITIONS WERE WARRANTED. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF ASSESSEE UPHELD THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. HOWEVER ON ESTIMATION OF PROFIT THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT DURING THE PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN 15 FLATS HOWEVER THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONSIDERED 14 FLATS ONLY WHICH IS A MISTAKE. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF M/S. EVERGREEN INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. PASSED BY DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 DATED 31.12.2009 FOR AY.2008-09 WHEREIN PROFIT WAS ESTIMATED IN 7 ITA NOS. 361 TO 363/SRT/2017 AYS.2010-11 2011-12 & 2012-13/ ARMAN ENTERPRISE SIMILAR BUSINESS OF 16%. WHEREIN ON FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL THE PROFIT WAS RESTRICTED TO 15%. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING OVERALL FACTS DIRECTED TO ADOPT THE GROSS PROFIT @15% AND ALLOWED STATUTORY DEDUCTION OF DEPRECIATION ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES AND PARTNERS REMUNERATION AND INTEREST PAYABLE. FURTHER AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSION OF LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) OF THE ASSESSEE AND DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) FOR REVENUE AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER REWRITE THE ACCOUNTS OF ASSESSEE BY REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT EMPOWERED TO REWRITE THE ACCOUNTS. THE ASSESSEE IS FALL IN PROJECT COMPLETION METHOD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADOPTED PERCENTAGE COMPLETION METHOD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER APPLIED GROSS PROFIT AT THE RATE OF 24%. THE GROSS PROFIT APPLIED BY ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ON EXCESSIVE HIGH SIDE. THE LD. CIT(A) RESTRICTED THE GROSS PROFIT AT THE RATE OF 15%. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT RECORDED THE STATEMENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO COMPARED GROSS PROFIT OF GOTHIC CONSTRUCTION WHICH HAS SHOWN GROSS PROFIT AT THE RATE OF 37.5% WAS NOT COMPARABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. M/S. GOTHIC CONSTRUCTION OFFERED INCOME ON SALE BASIS. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED DETAILS OF 15 FLATS SOLD DURING THE YEAR HOWEVER THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONSIDERED THAT 14 FLATS WERE SOLD. 8 ITA NOS. 361 TO 363/SRT/2017 AYS.2010-11 2011-12 & 2012-13/ ARMAN ENTERPRISE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE TREATED THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF SALE VALUE ON ESTIMATION BASIS BY TAKING HIGHEST VALUE OF FLAT SOLD AT RS.32 46 000/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD ALL THE FLATS AT MORE THAN JANTRI RATE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT APPRECIATED THAT BOOKING MADE AT THE INITIAL PROJECT ARE ALWAYS ON THE LOWER SIDE. 6. IN ALTERNATIVE SUBMISSION THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT REASONABLE PROFIT CAN BE TAXED AND 12% OVERALL PROFIT CAN BE CONSIDERED AS REASONABLE TO SUPPORT HIS SUBMISSION. THE LD. AR RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL IN KISHOR MOHAN TELWALA VS. ACIT (64 TTJ 543) WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL ESTIMATED ON THE BASIS OF 8% NET PROFIT ON MONEY RECEIPT. IN ANOTHER CASE IN SUCH ASSESSMENT WHEREIN THE ASSESSING OFFICER ESTIMATED PROFIT AT THE RATE OF 14.28% AND NON-APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A). IT WAS REDUCED 12% AND 12% WAS CONFIRMED BY TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.2724/AHD/2007 IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. NIVIN A. ASWIN. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITS THAT AVERAGE PROFIT OF THE PROJECT OF ASSESSEE IS 11.33% ON THE BASIS OF BOOK RESULT SHOWN BY ASSESSEE AND THE SAME SHOULD BE ACCEPTED. TO SUPPORT HIS SUBMISSIONS THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS; CIT VS POONAM RANI ( 2010) [ 78 CCH 442) JAYSTICK INTERMIDIES (P) LTD VS ACIT (73 TAXMANN.COM 195 GUJ HC) 9 ITA NOS. 361 TO 363/SRT/2017 AYS.2010-11 2011-12 & 2012-13/ ARMAN ENTERPRISE CIT VS SYMPHONY COMFORT SYSTEM LTD(2013) (35 TAXMANN.COM 533) (GUJ HC) FORT PROJECT VS DCIT (2011) [30CCH 418] KISHORE MOHAN LAL TELWALA VS ACIT (1998) [17 CCH 253] NAVIN A ASHWIN VS ACIT ( ITA NO. 2724/AHD/2007) CIT VS SHANTI ENTERPRISES [2013]( 40 TAXMANN.COM 484 (GUJ HC) AND K P VARGHESE VS ITO (1981)( 7 TAXMAN 13 SC). 7. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE SUBMITS THAT THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCREPANCIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER POINTING OUT DISCREPANCIES REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND ESTIMATED GROSS PROFIT AT THE RATE OF 24%. THE LD. CIT(A) GRACIOUSLY GRANTED SUBSTANTIAL METHOD OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR FURTHER RELIEF. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSION OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. AS NOTED ABOVE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ESTIMATED THE GROSS PROFIT AT THE RATE OF 24%. HOWEVER THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE DETAILS SUBMISSIONS OF ASSESSEE ESTIMATED THE PROFIT AT THE RATE OF 15% AND FURTHER ALLOWED STATUTORY DEDUCTION OF DEPRECIATION ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES AND PARTNERS REMUNERATION AND INTEREST PAYABLE. 10 ITA NOS. 361 TO 363/SRT/2017 AYS.2010-11 2011-12 & 2012-13/ ARMAN ENTERPRISE 9. CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WITHOUT SPECIFYING MAJOR DEFECTS AND RE-WRITE THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND THAT ESTIMATED 24% PROFIT BY ADOPTING HIGHEST VALUE OF FLAT SOLD BY ASSESSEE AT RS.32 46 000/-. WE ARE CONSCIOUS OF THE FACT THAT THE LD.CIT(A) WHILE GRANTING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE AS HELD THAT PROFIT @ 15% WOULD BE REASONABLE . THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE GRANTING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE FOLLOWED THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL IN EVERGREEN INDUSTRIES VS DCIT DATED 31.12.2009. BEFORE US THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY RELIED ON THE DECISION OF KISHOR MOHAN TELWALA VS. ACIT (64 TTJ 543) WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL ESTIMATED ON THE BASIS OF 8% NET PROFIT ON MONEY RECEIPT. IN OUR VIEW THE FACTS OF KISHORE MOHAN TELWALA (SUPRA) IS AT LITTLE VARIANCE. THE ADDITIONS IN THE SAID CASE ARE BASED ON RECEIPT OF ON MONEY. HOWEVER WE FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. NIVIN A. ASWIN (SUPRA) THE ASSESSING OFFICER ESTIMATED PROFIT AT THE RATE OF 14.28% AND ON APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A) IT WAS REDUCED 12%. AND OF FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) UPHELD VIDE ITA NO.2724/AHD/2007 THEREFORE BY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL IN ACIT VS. NIVIN A. ASWIN (SUPRA) WE DIRECT THE A.O. TO RESTRICT THE ADDITION TO 12% AND FURTHER ALLOW STATUTORY DEDUCTION OF DEPRECIATION ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES AND PARTNERS REMUNERATION AND INTEREST PAYABLE WHICH IN ORDER TO VIEW WOULD MEET THE END OF JUSTICE. KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACT THAT WE HAVE 11 ITA NOS. 361 TO 363/SRT/2017 AYS.2010-11 2011-12 & 2012-13/ ARMAN ENTERPRISE ACCEPTED THE ALTERNATIVE PLEA OF THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE AND ALLOW PART RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE HENCE ADJUDICATION ON OTHER CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSE HAVE BECOME ACADEMIC. IN THE RESULT THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. 10. CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT AY.2010-11 BY ESTIMATING PROFIT AT THE RATE OF 15% THEREFORE APPEAL FOR AY.2011-12 AND 2012-13 ARE ALSO ALLOWED WITH SIMILAR DIRECTIONS. 12. IN THE RESULT ALL APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 31.08.2021 BY PLACING THE RESULT ON THE NOTICE BOARD . SD/- SD/- (DR. A. L. SAINI) (PAWAN SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER SURAT DATED: 31/08/2021 COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR BY ORDER / / TRUE COPY / / ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT SURAT