9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 86X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l/97 for the assessment year 1993-94 on the following substantial questions of law:- i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was right in law in holding that the assessee could book its expenses on accrual basis and receipts on actual receipt basis and not account for work-inprogress in the closing stock? ii) Whether the Hon'ble ITAT was right in law in deleting the addition of Rs.1,10,000/- and Rs.1,60,000/- made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) on account of investment made by the three partners with the assess firm? Against the same judgment Assessee has also preferred appeal being I.T.A.No.238 of 2003 on the following substantial questions of law:- i) That whether under the facts a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... receipt of Rs.84,26,706/- against 12.39% on gross receipts of Rs.1,33,95,763/- in the previous assessment year. Learned Assessing Authority has held that purchase of alleged 'rori' (stone crushed) for an amount of Rs.6,48,770/- seems to be bogus on the ground that Rohtash Singh denied to have supplied any material or knowing Phool Singh Yadav & Co. The learned Assessing Authority had also made addition of Rs.75.000/- paid to one Mr.Surinder Kumar on account of hire charges of dumper/tractor for soil transportation and the expenditure incurred as mentioned was as per earlier years on the ground Surinder Kumar was never produced before the Assessing Authority despite of giving repeated opportunities. Learned CIT (A) as well as Tribunal uphel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Tribunal, therefore, questions of law no.(i) as suggested by the revenue stands answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. Assessing Officer has noticed that two new partners were introduced in the assessment year and both of them invested Rs.50,000/- each as their capital and no evidence with regard to the source of funds in respect of these two partners were filed, therefore, A.O made an addition of amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, which was shown to have been invested by two partners Subhash Yadav and Mantra Yadav. Similarly another addition of Rs.1,60,000/- was made to the income on account of contribution made by Sh.Phool Singh Yadav, another partner of the firm. The learned Tribunal has rightly observed that Sh.Subhash Ya ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
