9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 771X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se observations, remand back to AO. Disallowance of commission and brokerage. - Assessee should furnish the confirmation from M/s Vishal Agencies and should also explain the discrepancy in the amount of sales to M/s RITES Ltd.. Necessary agreement and correspondence in connection with commission should also be produced. With these observations, remand back to AO. Bad debt Write off Held that :- Advance given for the interior work of the office become unrecoverable. these are not allowable as bad debts but should be allowed as business loss. decided in favor of Assessee. Regarding addition made on the basis of Sales Tax. Assessee should furnish a copy of the sales tax assessment order before the Assessing Officer and thereafter the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee has furnished quantitative details of fabrication charges. It is noted by the Assessing Officer that as per these details, the assessee company has got 2000 pieces of nets fabricated from M/s CD Enterprises. It is further noted by the Assessing Officer that on going through the details of sales and closing stock, it was noticed that neither the above quantity of nets were sold nor they were shown in the list of closing stock as on 31/3/2004. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to explain the reasons. It is noted by the Assessing Officer that the ld. A.R. of the assessee Shri Pradeep Tayal has in all fairness accepted this discrepancy vide order sheet entry dated 26/12/2006. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the statement of the ld. A.R. of the assessee Shri Pradeep Tayal as per which, he has admitted before the Assessing Officer that there was discrepancy in the stock. Before the ld. CIT(A), it was submitted that these 2000 nets were not fabricated by the assessee from M/s C.D.Enterprises but in fact, these 2000 nets were repaired by M/s C.D.Enterprises for repairing charges of Rs.17,000/-. As against this submission of the assessee before the ld. CIT(A), we find that the Assessing Officer has made the addition on the basis of quantitative details of fabrication charges. If these nets were not fabricated and only repaired then how this quantity of 2000 nets appeared in the details of fabrication charges. It is not the case of the assessee t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd. for Rs.213.90 lacs. It is further noted by the Assessing Officer that the assessee did not furnish confirmation from the payee. It is further noted by the Assessing Officer that on perusal of the copy of ledger account, it is noted that commission has been paid to M/s Vishal Agencies @ 2% on total sales of Rs.213.90 lacs made to RITES Ltd. whereas as per the assessee's letter dated 18/12/2006 vide point No.6, the assessee claimed to have made total sales of Rs.19529628/- to RITES Ltd. during the year under consideration. Because of this, the Assessing Officer has treated the commission payment as bogus and made addition for the same. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yment of Rs.47,250/- on account of brokerage for office space and commission payment of Rs.4,27,800/- paid to M/s Vishal Agencies. Both the disallowances have been deleted by the ld. CIT(A) by observing that to deny the claim made for these expenses, the Assessing Officer should have made further enquiries. When the ld. CIT(A) says that the Assessing Officer should have made further enquiries, we find no basis for deleting the disallowance by the ld. CIT(A). This is the claim of the assessee firm that confirmation could not be furnished before the Assessing Officer due to paucity of time. If that is a fact then the confirmation should have been furnished before before the ld. CIT(A) or before us but that was not done. Regarding the discrepa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d as business loss. The ld. CIT(A) has accepted this claim of the assessee and now, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 11. The ld. D.R. of the Revenue has supported the assessment order whereas the ld. counsel of the assessee has supported the order of the ld. CIT(A). 12. We have considered the rival submissions and we find that in the facts of the present case, the ld. CIT(A) has rightly accepted the claim of the assessee that these two amounts are allowable as business loss and we find no reason to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue. Ground No.3 of the Revenue is rejected. 13. Regarding ground No.4, the facts are that it is noted by the Assessing Officer on page 3 and 4 of the assessment order that durin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
