9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 771X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.4,27,800/- on account of commission and Rs.47,250/- on account of brokerage of office space. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.55,000/- on account of bad debts written off by admitting fresh evidence without confronting the A.O.. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.23,160/- on account of sales tax by admitting fresh evidence without confronting the A.O. 3. Regarding ground No.1 of the appeal, the facts are that it is noted by the Assessing Officer in the assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... damaged and the same were got repaired by M/s C.D.Enterprises and since these nets were already in the stock of the assessee, it was not required to include the same again in the closing stock and hence, the addition made by the Assessing Officer is not justified. He also pointed out that to M/s C.D.Enterprises a payment of Rs.17,000/- was made on account of repairing of old 2000 torn nets @ Rs.8.50 per net. The ld. CIT(A) deleted this addition and now, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 4. The ld. D.R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas the ld. counsel of the assessee supported the order of ld. CIT(A). 5. We have considered the rival submissions and we find that addition was made by the Assessing Officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... either be included in sales or in closing stock. With these observations, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue and restore this matter back to the file of Assessing Officer for a fresh decision in the light of the above discussion. The Assessing Officer should pass necessary order as per law after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Ground No.1 of the revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes. 6. The facts regarding Ground No.2 are that it is noted by the Assessing Officer on page No.2 of the assessment order that the assessee has made payment of commission of Rs.4,27,800/- to M/s Vishal Agencies. It was also explained before the Assessing Officer that such commission was paid @ 2% ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ils regarding payment of commission to Vishal Agencies and payment of brokerage for taking a commercial premise on lease paid to Surya Associates were filed before the A.O. To deny the claim made for these expenses, the A.O. should have made further enquiries. On a close perusal of the details filed before me i.e.copy of Income-tax return, bank statement, details of tax deductged at source, both the transactions appear to be genuine business transactions and are to be allowed. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the addition made for both the disallowances to the tune of Rs.4,75,050/- is deleted." 9. From the above findings of the ld. CIT(A), we find that the dispute was regarding total commission payment of Rs.4,75, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r statistical purposes. 10. Regarding ground No.3, the facts are that during this year, the assessee company has claimed bad debts to the tune of Rs.1,13,007/-. The Assessing Officer noted that it included two amounts of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.30,000/-, which were on account of advance given for the interior work of the office but the contract got cancelled and money could not be recovered back. For these two amounts, the Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the assessee regarding bad debts on the basis that the provisions of sec. 36(2) are not complied with. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and before the ld. CIT(A), it was the claim of the assessee that these two amounts are not allow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The ld. D.R. supported the assessment order whereas the ld.counsel of the assessee supported the order of ld. CIT(A). 15. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that the disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer for the reason that copy of sales tax assessment order was not furnished by the assessee before him. The ld. CIT(A) has deleted the disallowance on the basis of sales tax assessment order. Since the sales tax assessment order was not available before the Assessing Officer, we restore this matter back to the file of Assessing Officer for a fresh decision. The assessee should furnish a copy of the sales tax assessment order before the Assessing Officer and thereafter the Assessing Officer should pass necessary ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
