9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (4) TMI 190X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... these could not be considered while passing the Tribunal s appellate order. As such in view of the Tribunal s aforesaid recall order this appeal was refixed for hearing. 2.1 We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the record. 3. Ground No. 1 disputes the trading addition of Rs. 10,000. The learned authorised representative of assessee has contended that the assessee is a trader in respect of timber. He has contended that this is the second year of assessee s business and that in the earlier year business was conducted only for three months. He has contended that the assessee is primarily a wholesale dealer and more than 75 per cent are wholesale business and details of wholesale are given on pp. 15 to 19 of P.B. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... addition of Rs. 10,000 should be deleted. As against this, the learned Departmental Representative of Revenue has contended that this ground of addition of Rs. 10,000 was never disputed in miscellaneous application. He has contended that the order in miscellaneous application has to be read along with miscellaneous application so the addition of Rs. 10,000 cannot now be agitated before the Tribunal by the assessee. He has contended that recalling of the order still means confined to the issue raised in miscellaneous application and so the addition of Rs. 10,000 has become final. Arguing on merits the learned Departmental Representative of Revenue has referred to p. 3 of the assessment order as also para 4 on p. 3 of the learned CIT(A) s ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fied with reference to the purchase bills and sale is found to be unrebutted. In that view of the matter we find no infirmity in the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) in sustaining the addition of Rs. 10,000 and the addition is found to be quite justified and we, therefore, decline to interfere with the same on this count. 6. Ground No. 3 disputes the addition of Rs. 68,000 being the peak balance in the accounts of advances received by the assessee against orders booked. The learned authorised representative of assessee has contended that in those cases where orders were booked and advances were received but materials were not supplied and therefore, the amounts received as advances were refunded. The AO had made the addition in respec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er (S.O.) has been cancelled and the amount has been paid off on 13th March, 1990, and the cash book copy is placed on p. 30 of the P.B. He has contended that affidavit of Narendra Singh is placed on Pg. 49 of P.B. and in his cross-examination also this deposit has not been shaken. He has also contended that this addition of Rs. 68,000 is only in respect of orders booked but subsequently cancelled and advances refunded. As against this, the learned Departmental Representative of Revenue has contended that the AO has given adequate opportunity to the assessee to explain all these items. He has referred to pg. 1 and pg. 3 of AO s order and he has contended that in all there are 30 creditors noticed by AO. He has contended that the AO has disc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed on 13-3-1990 Rs. 7,000 21-8-1989 SO P. 29 P. 29 27-3-1990 P. 66, 67 12. Ajmer Singh Rs. 10,000 29-9-1989 SO. P. 31 2-10-1989 P. 31 P. 43 P. 68,69 SO Cancelled on 2-10-1989 14. Satpal Singh Rs. 10,000 28-9-1989 SO P. 32 30-9-1989 P. 32 P. 45, 46 P. 60 to 62 28-9-1989 P. 33 SO cancelled on 30-9-1989 16. Deedar Singh Rs. 4,500 20-11-1989 SO P. 34 27-3-1990 P. 34 P. 50 P. 63 to 65 SO cancelled on 27-3-1990 17. Hari Singh Rs. 8,000 2-12-1989 26-3-1990 (8500) P. 44 P. 70 to 71 2-12-1989 P. 36 SO cancelled on 30-3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
