9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (2) TMI 237X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st CIT(A) s order dated 30-4-2010 relating to A.Y. 2005-06. Following grounds are raised: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and law in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,24,164/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of low yield of rice production by one line observation that In view of the Ld. A.R s submissions and in view of additional documentary evidence submitted, the addition ahs no legs to stand without showing as to how the assessee was justified in declaring 62.94% yield as against yield of 65% as adopted by the Assessing Officer and as compared to other assessee like Ganpat Rice Gen. Mills in the area which were showing percentage of yield ranging from 65% to 67% and more so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amed assessment u/s 144 of the I.T. Act, by making following two additions: (1) Assessee has reflected yield of 62.94% of rice from paddy. According to AO it was low. He adopted 65% yield to be reasonable which worked out to an addition of Rs. 4,42,164/-. (2) Assessee had shown unsecured loans of Rs. 5,30,000/- from one Shri Ram Parsad prop. M/s Ram Parsad Rawat Trading Co. According to AO, notices were issued on the partner Shri Sanjeev Bansal to file confirmation of this unsecured loan. Due to non-compliance, this addition was also made. 3. Aggrieved, assessee preferred first appeal, where it was pleaded that at the time of assessment, there were serious disputes among the partners and the other partner Shri Sanjeev Bansal did not r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he order of assessment. The Ld. AR ahs submitted additional evidences in support of yield and trading results declared by the assessee which has been admitted as above. The AO has not been able to find anything adverse against the assessee after the examination of additional evidence u/r 46A(3). In view of the Ld. AR s submissions and in view of the documentary evidences submitted in support of the trading results declared by the appellant firm, the trading addition of Rs. 4,24,164/- has no legs to stand upon and hence deserves to be deleted. 5. In respect of cash credit, assessee contended that it was a fresh credit. Shri Ram Parsad Rawat was a trade creditor and the amount represented trade credit on account of supply of paddy. A prope ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IT(A) has rightly exercised his power of admission of additional evidence and recorded proper reasons there for, holding that assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing them before the AO. In view thereof, we see no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) in admitting additional evidence. Ground no. 3 of Revenue s appeal is dismissed. 8. Apropos ground no. 1 i.e. the addition on account of low yield of rice, assessee has demonstrated from the comparable figures that the average yield of rice in the vicinity was around 62.9%, compared by these parameters, assessee s yield cannot be called disproportionate. Books of account are properly maintained, duly audited and filed along with the return. In these circumstances, we see no infirmit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
