|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 261 to 280 of 533 Records
-
2002 (9) TMI 489
The Appellate Tribunal rejected the appeal of the assessee regarding Modvat credit due to missing details in the invoices. The application for rectification of the final order was denied as the necessary details were not mentioned in the appeal memorandum or presented before the Bench. The ROM application was rejected as no mistake was found in the record.
-
2002 (9) TMI 488
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai heard a case where duty on embroidered fabrics was disputed. The Commissioner had imposed duties and penalties, but the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument regarding limitation. The Tribunal waived the pre-deposit requirement and ordered a stay on duty and penalty recovery during the appeal.
-
2002 (9) TMI 487
Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for additional duty exemption under Customs Notification No. 29/97.
2. Interpretation of "goods required for the manufacture of textile garments (including knitwear)".
3. Validity of circulars issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) in restricting the exemption.
4. Applicability of Supreme Court and Tribunal decisions in interpreting the notification.
5. Relevance of Central Excise Tariff classifications.
6. Consideration of industrial and commercial norms in defining manufacturing processes.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Eligibility for Additional Duty Exemption:
The appeals focused on the eligibility for additional duty exemption for various machines imported under the EPCG scheme for manufacturing textile garments, including knitted garments, as per Customs Notification No. 29/97. The authorities had rejected the appellants' claims for exemption, arguing that the imported machines were not directly required for manufacturing knitted garments.
2. Interpretation of "Goods Required for the Manufacture of Textile Garments (Including Knitwear)":
The appellants argued that the machines imported were essential for manufacturing textile garments and should qualify for exemption. They contended that the notification's language was clear and unambiguous and should be interpreted based on its plain meaning. The appellants relied on several judgments to support their view that the term "manufacture" should encompass all processes integral to producing the final product.
3. Validity of CBEC Circulars:
The appellants challenged the CBEC circulars that restricted the exemption to machines directly used in manufacturing garments. They argued that administrative circulars could not curtail the benefits provided by a statutory notification. The Tribunal agreed, stating that the notification should be interpreted as worded, without additional restrictions imposed by circulars.
4. Applicability of Supreme Court and Tribunal Decisions:
The appellants cited multiple Supreme Court and Tribunal decisions to argue that the term "manufacture" includes all integral processes necessary for producing the final product. The Tribunal agreed, referencing cases like J.K. Cotton Mills and Rajasthan State Chemical Works, which emphasized that manufacturing involves a series of interconnected processes.
5. Relevance of Central Excise Tariff Classifications:
The Revenue argued that fabrics and garments are classified under different chapters in the Central Excise Tariff, implying they are distinct products. The Tribunal found this argument irrelevant, stating that the classification does not determine whether fabric production is part of garment manufacturing.
6. Consideration of Industrial and Commercial Norms:
The Tribunal considered industrial norms and commercial practices, noting that high-quality garment production often starts with knitting the fabric. The Tribunal reviewed technical details and industry standards, concluding that knitting and processing fabrics are integral to manufacturing knitted garments.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeals, ruling that the machines in question are required for manufacturing textile garments, including knitted garments, and thus qualify for the additional duty exemption under Notification No. 29/97. The impugned orders were set aside, granting consequential relief to the appellants.
-
2002 (9) TMI 486
The appeal for restoration was filed by M/s. Rathi Graphics Technology Ltd. as they did not comply with the deposit requirement stated in the Stay Order. The appellant deposited the required amount in three instalments with some delay. The appellant's counsel cited a case where the Tribunal restored appeals despite delays in deposit. However, the Tribunal rejected the restoration application due to a delay of one and a half years, deeming it unreasonable.
-
2002 (9) TMI 485
The appeal was filed regarding Modvat credit on lead sheet. The Tribunal found lead sheets not eligible for credit as they did not fall under specified categories. The appeal was dismissed for lacking merit.
-
2002 (9) TMI 484
The appeals were filed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Patna regarding compliance of the Tribunal's order for refund. The Tribunal's final order allowed the refund, which was then refunded by the Assistant Commissioner. The appellant argued that the Assistant Commissioner's order cannot be treated as an adjudication order. The Tribunal agreed, stating that the Assistant Commissioner's order granting refund is not a judicial order. The appeals were allowed in favor of the appellants.
-
2002 (9) TMI 483
Issues:
1. Recovery of irregularly availed notional credit.
2. Availability of differential higher notional credit.
3. Applicability of Board's Circular No. 48/90-CX. 8.
4. Challenge on the point of limitation.
Analysis:
1. Recovery of irregularly availed notional credit:
Two show cause notices were issued proposing recovery of irregularly availed notional credit by the appellants during specific periods. The appellants initially took notional credit on inputs from small-scale industrial units but later took differential higher notional credit when those units paid differential duty due to price revisions. The authorities held that such differential higher notional credit was not permissible as per the Board's Circular. However, the appellants relied on a Tribunal decision to support their claim that once credit is taken, an assessee can take additional credit if the earlier credit was short.
2. Availability of differential higher notional credit:
The Tribunal's decision in a similar case supported the appellants' argument that the right to avail credit under specific rules cannot be denied as long as all other eligibility criteria are met. The appellants contended that they were entitled to the differential higher notional credit based on this principle.
3. Applicability of Board's Circular No. 48/90-CX. 8:
The authorities relied on the Board's Circular to disallow the differential higher notional credit claimed by the appellants. However, the appellants contested this decision by citing the Tribunal's ruling in a previous case to support their position that they were entitled to the credit under the relevant rules.
4. Challenge on the point of limitation:
The key issue addressed by the judgment was the point of limitation. The Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals) invoked the extended period of limitation, alleging that the appellants suppressed the fact of availing differential higher notional credit with the intent to evade duty. However, the judgment highlighted that there was no evidence of suppression as the records submitted by the appellants reflected the credits taken. Consequently, the demand raised after six months was deemed time-barred, leading to the setting aside of the order confirming the duty demand and penalties imposed on the appellants.
In conclusion, the judgment primarily focused on the issue of limitation, determining that the demand raised after the prescribed period was barred by limitation due to the lack of evidence supporting the allegation of suppression of facts by the appellants. The decision favored the appellants, setting aside the order confirming the duty demand and penalties, and granting them consequential reliefs.
-
2002 (9) TMI 482
Issues:
1. Denial of Modvat credit on HDPE/LDPE granules.
2. Allegation of replacing prime quality imported granules with lower quality granules.
3. Imposition of personal penalty under Rule 173Q.
Issue 1: Denial of Modvat credit on HDPE/LDPE granules:
The central excise officers found discrepancies during a visit to the appellant's factory, alleging that the appellant replaced duty-paid granules with non-duty-paid ones. The officers issued a show cause notice proposing confiscation of excess goods and denial of Modvat credit worth Rs. 87,217. The Commissioner upheld the denial and imposed a penalty. The appellant argued that the Revenue's case relied on assumptions and lacked concrete evidence. They claimed that the granules in question were processed HDPE granules for manufacturing black HDPE pipes. The Tribunal found no substantial evidence supporting the Revenue's claim and granted the benefit of doubt to the appellant, setting aside the Commissioner's order.
Issue 2: Allegation of replacing prime quality imported granules with lower quality granules:
Another show cause notice alleged that the appellant replaced prime quality imported granules with lower quality ones after availing Modvat credit, supported by incriminating transport documents. The Commissioner denied Modvat credit worth Rs. 5,64,007 and imposed a personal penalty. The Tribunal noted that the transport documents confirmed the importation of granules to the appellant's factory. The Commissioner's observation that the appellant failed to prove receipt of goods contradicted the transport documents. The Tribunal held that the burden of proof lay with the Revenue, and as no evidence supported the allegation of non-receipt of prime quality granules, the denial of Modvat credit was unjustified. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order and ruled in favor of the appellant.
Issue 3: Imposition of personal penalty under Rule 173Q:
The Commissioner imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 10,000 under Rule 173Q. However, as the Tribunal set aside the denial of Modvat credit and found no substantial evidence supporting the allegations, the imposition of the penalty was unwarranted. The Tribunal's decision to grant relief to the appellant consequently nullified the imposition of the personal penalty.
---
-
2002 (9) TMI 481
Issues: Alleged replacement of prime quality granules with re-generated granules, denial of Modvat credit on HDPE granules, imposition of personal penalty
Replacement of Prime Quality Granules with Re-generated Granules:
The central excise officers alleged that the appellants replaced prime quality granules with re-generated ones. However, the visiting officers did not draw any samples to confirm the quality of the granules. The appellants argued that the granules found were processed master-batch of black color used in manufacturing HDPE pipes of the same color. The quantity of granules in the premises matched the quantity for which Modvat credit was taken. The tribunal found no substantial evidence supporting the claim that prime quality granules were replaced. Consequently, the benefit was given to the appellant due to lack of evidence supporting the allegations.
Denial of Modvat Credit on HDPE Granules:
The Commissioner denied Modvat credit on 68.939 MT of HDPE granules, alleging that the appellants replaced prime quality imported granules with lower quality ones after availing the credit. The Commissioner stated that no evidence was produced to prove the receipt of the goods in the factory. However, transport documents indicated the transportation of the granules to the factory. The tribunal noted the contradiction in the Commissioner's observations and emphasized that the burden of proof lay with the Revenue to demonstrate that the prime quality granules were not received by the appellant. As no evidence was presented to support the allegation, the tribunal found no justification for denying the Modvat credit to the appellant. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief to the appellants.
Imposition of Personal Penalty:
The Commissioner imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 10,000 under Rule 173Q. However, the tribunal did not provide a specific analysis or decision regarding the imposition of this penalty in the summarized judgment.
-
2002 (9) TMI 478
The appeal was against the remission of Central Excise duty on molasses lost due to negligence. The appellant argued based on insurance settlement and court acquittal, but the tribunal found the loss was due to negligence, not an accident, and dismissed the appeal.
-
2002 (9) TMI 477
Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of applications under Section 127B of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Liability and settlement of duty demands.
3. Imposition of penalties and fines.
4. Interest on duty liability.
5. Immunity from prosecution.
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Admissibility of Applications under Section 127B of the Customs Act, 1962:
- The applications were filed by M/s. Amrit Laxmi Machine Works and Shri N.K. Brahmachari under Section 127B of the Customs Act, 1962.
- The applicant admitted duty liability of Rs. 15,94,565/- for the 3rd show cause notice dated 16-8-2000.
- The Commission observed that the applicant did not file any Bill of Entry for the 1st and 2nd show cause notices dated 22-6-2000 and 26-7-2000, thus not satisfying the conditions stipulated in clause (a) of Section 127B.
- The Commission allowed the application to proceed only in respect of the 3rd show cause notice where the Bill of Entry was filed by the applicant.
2. Liability and Settlement of Duty Demands:
- The 1st show cause notice demanded Rs. 65,78,106/- from several parties, including the applicant, but the duty was not admitted by the applicant as the imports were by M/s. Nippon Bearings (India).
- The 2nd show cause notice did not demand duty but proposed penalties for goods seized before clearance.
- The 3rd show cause notice demanded Rs. 15,94,565/- for 240 pcs. of bearings imported by M/s. Nippon but cleared in the name of the applicant.
- The applicant admitted the duty liability of Rs. 15,94,565/- and deposited the amount as directed by the Bombay High Court.
3. Imposition of Penalties and Fines:
- The Commission granted immunity from fines and penalties to the applicant, noting their cooperation and full disclosure during the proceedings.
4. Interest on Duty Liability:
- The import was made under Notification No. 80/95, dated 31-3-1995, which stipulated an interest rate of 24% per annum.
- The Commission, however, granted immunity from payment of interest in excess of 10%, directing the applicant to calculate and pay interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of import to the date of deposit with the High Court.
5. Immunity from Prosecution:
- The Commission granted immunity from prosecution under the Customs Act, 1962, and the Indian Penal Code for matters covered in the 3rd show cause notice dated 16-8-2000.
- Immunity was not granted for the other two show cause notices dated 22-6-2000 and 26-7-2000, which were not allowed to proceed.
Conclusion:
- The Commission settled the case for a duty of Rs. 15,94,565/- and granted immunity from fines, penalties, and prosecution for the 3rd show cause notice.
- The applicant was directed to pay interest at the rate of 10% per annum and to submit the calculation to the Revenue for verification.
- The order emphasized that it would be void if obtained by fraud or misrepresentation of facts.
-
2002 (9) TMI 475
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi ruled in favor of the appellant in a case involving the transfer of Modvat credit between different divisions of a company. The tribunal waived the pre-deposit of duty and penalty, noting that the appellant had a strong case. The matter was scheduled for further hearing on 7-10-02.
-
2002 (9) TMI 474
The appellate tribunal allowed the appeal of the manufacturers of aerated water regarding Modvat credit on conveyor parts, as the parts were considered eligible capital goods under Rule 57Q. The lower authorities' decision disallowing the credit was set aside.
-
2002 (9) TMI 442
Issues:
1. Applications for waiver of pre-deposit regarding duty and penalties imposed by the Commissioner.
Analysis:
The appellant, represented by Shri Harish Chander, Advocate, sought waiver of pre-deposit concerning duty and penalties imposed by the Commissioner. The advocate argued that the impugned order was passed ex parte without hearing them, emphasizing ongoing proceedings before the DGFT and citing relevant legal precedents. Financial hardship was also pleaded, asserting the lack of available assets. On the other hand, Smt. Neeta Lal Butalia, SDR for the Respondent, opposed the waiver, highlighting the sale of imported raw material and non-fulfillment of export obligations. The Respondent contended that the applicants should deposit at least the maximum amount due, given the circumstances. The Respondent also mentioned that personal hearings were granted but not attended, denying any violation of natural justice principles.
The Tribunal considered both sides' submissions and facts. It was acknowledged that the Applicants had imported goods with unmet export obligations and had sold some raw material. The delay in seeking an extension for meeting export obligations was noted, along with the lack of mention of financial hardship in the initial stay application. The Tribunal found no merit in the contention of not being heard personally, as the fixing of a personal hearing was not denied by the Applicants. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that the Applicants had not established a prima facie case for a complete waiver of the demanded duty. Taking into account the financial hardships claimed and the facts of the case, especially the sale of raw material and non-compliance with export obligations, the Tribunal directed M/s. Roxy Industrial Corpn. to deposit Rs. One Crore within 8 weeks. Upon compliance, the remaining duty and penalties would be waived, with recovery stayed during the appeal's pendency. Failure to comply would lead to dismissal of all appeals without further notice, with a follow-up compliance date set for November 28, 2002.
-
2002 (9) TMI 441
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Special Import Licence (SIL) under the EXIM Policy 1992-97.
2. Classification of imported goods under Customs Tariff Headings.
3. Valuation of imported goods.
4. Confiscation and penalty under the Customs Act, 1962.
Interpretation of Special Import Licence (SIL):
The case involved a dispute regarding the interpretation of a Special Import Licence (SIL) issued under the EXIM Policy 1992-97. The Customs authorities alleged that the imported goods, electronic toys and kitchen sets, did not conform to the SIL conditions. The Dy. Commissioner of Customs held that the goods were imported in contravention of the EXIM Policy and were liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) overturned this decision, stating that the goods were covered by the list attached to the SIL, and the importers had not violated any provisions of the EXIM Policy.
Classification of Imported Goods:
The classification of the imported goods under Customs Tariff Headings was crucial in determining their admissibility under the SIL. The Dy. Commissioner of Customs noted that the goods imported did not fall under the specified headings of 9503.20 or 9504.10, as required by the EXIM Policy. This classification discrepancy led to the initiation of proceedings against the importers. However, the lower appellate authority and the Tribunal emphasized that since the goods were specifically listed in the SIL, any changes in the policy after the issuance of the SIL could not be applied retroactively to the imports.
Valuation of Imported Goods:
Another contentious issue was the valuation of the imported goods, particularly the kitchen sets. The Dy. Commissioner of Customs applied Rule 11 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, and ordered the kitchen sets to be assessed at a specific unit price, disregarding the importer's valuation. In contrast, the Commissioner (Appeals) found no fault with the price given by the seller and highlighted the vast difference in quantity and origin of the goods compared to the earlier imports. Consequently, the original valuation was set aside in favor of the importers.
Confiscation and Penalty under Customs Act:
The Dy. Commissioner of Customs had ordered the confiscation of the imported toys under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, along with imposing a fine and penalty on the importers. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) overturned this decision, emphasizing that the importers had not violated any provisions of the EXIM Policy. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals), dismissing the Revenue appeal and ruling that the importers had not contravened the conditions of the SIL or the Customs Act, thus rejecting the confiscation and penalty imposed by the Dy. Commissioner of Customs.
In conclusion, the judgment resolved the issues surrounding the interpretation of the SIL, classification of imported goods, valuation discrepancies, and the legality of confiscation and penalties under the Customs Act, providing clarity on the applicability of policy changes to previously issued licences and the valuation criteria for imported goods.
-
2002 (9) TMI 440
Issues: Modvat credit on additional film rolls supplied with cameras.
Issue 1: Modvat Credit Eligibility
The case involved a dispute regarding the Modvat credit availed by the appellants on additional film rolls supplied with cameras. Initially, the appellants included one free film roll with the camera, and the Modvat credit was allowed without any issue. However, when the appellants started providing two additional film rolls without changing the declared MRP, the Department raised concerns. The Commissioner (Appeals) denied the credit, stating that the film rolls were not eligible inputs under Rule 57B. The Commissioner emphasized that the film rolls were accessories/gifts and not integral to the final product. The appellants argued that the cost of the film rolls was included in the assessable value, but the Commissioner rejected this argument. The Appellate Tribunal analyzed Rule 57B, which allows credit on specified items like accessories included in the assessable value of the final product. The Tribunal noted that the rule did not define 'accessory' in singular form, and since the department accepted one film roll as an accessory, multiple film rolls should also be considered eligible inputs. Therefore, the Tribunal found no legal impediment in considering multiple film rolls as permissible inputs under Rule 57B.
Issue 2: Commissioner's Findings
The Tribunal critiqued the Commissioner's order for not providing a valid reason for rejecting the certificates submitted by the appellants showing that the cost of the additional film rolls was absorbed. The appellants argued that the Asst. Commissioner had accepted that the value of the film rolls was included in the assessable value of the cameras. However, the Commissioner did not address this argument in his order. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner failed to justify why he disregarded the evidence provided by the appellants and did not explain why he disagreed with the Asst. Commissioner's acceptance of the cost absorption. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that there was no basis to uphold the Commissioner's decision.
In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal by overturning the Commissioner (Appeals) order, emphasizing that multiple film rolls supplied with cameras should be considered eligible inputs for Modvat credit under Rule 57B. The Tribunal highlighted the lack of justification in the Commissioner's findings and ruled in favor of the appellants regarding the inclusion of the film rolls' cost in the assessable value.
-
2002 (9) TMI 438
The Revenue appealed against the Commissioner's order demanding duty on lost fabrics due to shrinkage. The Tribunal held that shrinkage must be considered in calculating intrinsic value of cloth. The assessee argued that shrinkage was already accounted for in the profit margin. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that shrinkage was covered in the profit margin and no further duty was required.
-
2002 (9) TMI 417
Issues:
Common issue involving lottery winnings treated as unaccounted investment by Assessing Officer.
Analysis:
The case involved two appeals raising identical grounds related to the treatment of income from lottery winnings. The assessees, a mother and son, each received Rs. 6,00,000 from winning a lottery. The Assessing Officer suspected the winnings were used to convert unaccounted money. The CIT(A) directed further inquiries to establish the genuineness of the winnings. The subsequent assessments repeated the original findings. The CIT(A) concluded that there was no concrete evidence against the assessees and allowed the appeals, holding the amounts as lottery winnings. The Revenue contended that the circumstances were suspicious, highlighting inconsistencies in the lottery process. The assessees argued that suspicion alone cannot be the basis for assessment, citing legal precedents. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's findings were based on mere suspicion without supporting evidence. While the circumstances raised strong suspicions, they could not be the sole basis for assessment. The assessees provided lottery tickets, bank drafts, and TDS certificates as evidence. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing the lack of concrete evidence against the assessees and dismissing the Revenue's appeals.
-
2002 (9) TMI 416
Issues:
Validity of assessment under section 158BC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 based on search and seizure conditions.
Analysis:
The appeal was against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for the block period 1-4-1986 to 6-2-1997. An additional ground was admitted regarding the legality of the assessment under section 158BC of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The appellant argued that no search was conducted in their case, nor were any books of account or assets requisitioned under section 132A. The appellant contended that the assessment was invalid as the necessary conditions under section 158BC were not met. The Departmental Representative countered with a letter stating that the warrant only mentioned one individual's name, not the appellant's. The Tribunal examined the arguments and precedents cited by both parties.
The Tribunal found that there was no warrant in the appellant's name, and no evidence of a search or requisition of documents in their case. The warrant mentioned only the name of a different individual, not the appellant. The Tribunal considered the provisions of section 158BC, which require the essential conditions of a search under section 132 or requisition of documents under section 132A to be met for initiating proceedings. As these conditions were not satisfied in the appellant's case, the Tribunal concluded that the notice issued for assessment under section 158BC was illegal. Consequently, the assessment was deemed unlawful and annulled. The Tribunal did not address other grounds raised by the appellant on merit due to the annulment of the assessment.
In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appellant's appeal, ruling in their favor based on the lack of legal basis for the assessment under section 158BC. The Tribunal quashed the notice issued and annulled the assessment as it did not meet the necessary conditions mandated by the Income-tax Act, 1961.
-
2002 (9) TMI 415
Issues Involved:
1. Justification of the addition of Rs. 2,72,454 on account of the difference in the cost of construction.
2. Reliability of the Valuation Officer's report.
3. Examination and rejection of the assessee's books of account.
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Justification of the addition of Rs. 2,72,454 on account of the difference in the cost of construction:
The assessee constructed a marriage palace and declared the building account at Rs. 14,32,104. The Assessing Officer (AO) referred the case to the Valuation Officer (VO), who valued the property at Rs. 42,55,600. After considering objections and revaluations, the AO determined the cost of construction at Rs. 33,09,558, leading to an addition of Rs. 12,91,668 under section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The CIT(A) reduced this addition by Rs. 10,19,214, sustaining an addition of Rs. 2,72,454. The Tribunal found that the AO and CIT(A) did not properly examine the books of account, which were maintained by the assessee and supported by vouchers. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A) should have deleted the entire addition, as the book results were not rejected by the lower authorities.
2. Reliability of the Valuation Officer's report:
The Valuation Officer's report was challenged by the assessee, who provided valuation reports from other approved valuers showing lower construction costs. The CIT(A) noted that the property was a simple structure, and the VO's rates were higher than those applicable to such buildings. The CIT(A) allowed a rebate of 12% for self-supervision and reduced the addition based on the valuation differences. However, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) and AO relied heavily on the VO's report without properly examining the assessee's books of account or giving the assessee an opportunity to rebut the findings.
3. Examination and rejection of the assessee's books of account:
The Tribunal emphasized that the AO and CIT(A) did not reject the assessee's books of account, which were maintained regularly and supported by vouchers. The Tribunal cited precedents, including the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Pratapsingh Amrosingh Rajendra Singh and Deepak Kumar, which held that if proper books are maintained and no defects are pointed out, the figures shown therein must be followed. The Tribunal concluded that the AO and CIT(A) erred in relying on the VO's report without examining the books, and thus, the addition of Rs. 2,72,454 was unjustified.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, deleting the addition of Rs. 2,72,454 sustained by the CIT(A), as the lower authorities did not properly examine or reject the assessee's books of account before relying on the VO's report.
............
|
9911796707
