9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (4) TMI 208X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under MES for making the supply of machinery in the name and style of his proprietorship concern of M/s New Brato Engineering Works. 3. The first ground of appeal of the Revenue relates to deletion of a trading addition of Rs. 3,04,911. 4. The assessee has shown gross sales of Rs. 66,34,020 in M/s Utsav Industries as against sales of Rs. 45,05,501 shown in the immediately preceding year. The GP has declined to 21.80 per cent from 22.40 per cent in the previous year. The small decline in the rate of profit was attributed to the increase in sales. The AO did not find any material defect(s) in the maintenance of the books of account. But the assessee had not maintained stock register and the production records. The AO rejected the books o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eep increase in the sales during this year. The AO has mentioned that in the industrial unit manufacturing machinery items like the assessee, the GP rate is usually higher than the GP declared by the assessee but verily, he has not cared to quote any name of such a comparable unit. Therefore, his perception of higher GP rate is based on mere surmises and conjectures. The difference in GP is of 0.40 per cent only whereas the turnover has increased by around Rs. 21,00,000. The small decline in the GP rate stands explained, as there is high increase in the sales. Reliance can be placed on the decision of this Bench in the case of Ashok Kumar Agarwal vs. ITO (2005) 98 TTJ (Jd) 663 and Sriram Jhanwarlal vs. ITO (2005) 98 TTJ (Jd) 639 and CIT vs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this amount. The AO has also doubted the payment made to the goldsmith after the performance of the marriage on 29th Jan., 1998, which was considered by the learned AO as ridiculous because gold jewellery is always purchased before the marriage. But we agree with the learned Authorised Representative as well as the learned CIT(A) that the jewellery was purchased at the time of the marriage but the bills were settled after the marriage. There is nothing abnormal or ridiculous in such act of the assessee as normally the payments incurred in a function are settled after the function is over. The marriage was performed on 14th Dec., 1997 and payment was made on 29th Jan., 1998, which is not too remote a date, which can be considered as ridiculo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be relevant for a given assessment year. In the background of the above facts, it has been argued by the learned Authorised Representative that these amounts cannot be stated to have been received during the relevant year. The learned Authorised Representative has relied on the various decisions in this regard. 15. After considering the rival submissions, we are convinced that an amount has to be taxed in the year of receipt and in this case there is a confusion with regard to receipt of the impugned amounts during the relevant year. It was concurred by both the parties in the open Court that the issue needs to be restored to the file of the AO for looking into the abovementioned important aspects of this issue, instead of calling for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
