9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 132X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed advances received from customers. 2. That the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-II be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 3. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend any ground of appeal before it is finally disposed of." In the course of the present appellate proceedings, the learned Departmental representative after referring the relevant paras of assessment order and the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) placed reliance on the assessment order. The learned authorised representative supported the findings of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). In this case, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 28,00,000, in respect of advances received from M/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oceedings the appellant has filed evidence being copies of various documents including confirmed copy of account of the appellant in the books of that company and wherein permanent account number of the company has been duly indicated. This evidence was admitted as additional evidence for the reasons already discussed in the letter dated February 22, 2010 which has been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. Accordingly even in the report of the Assessing Officer dated March 10, 2010 as has also been pointed out by learned counsel, after filing of the additional evidence indicating permanent account number of M/s. Jot Agro Processors P. Ltd., he has not commented adversely about the advance received by the appellant from the said company. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the account of M/s. Nestle India Ltd. by the appellant. This mistake has, however, subsequently been rectified. 3.2 Coming to the journal entry of Rs. 16.38 lakhs, this is explained to be the amount in respect of term loan from the bank. As further explained, in view of the normal practice in this regard the draft was made by the banker of M/s. Madura Agro Food Inds. in the name of the appellant during the preceding year whereas the appellant had supplied the machinery in the subsequent year and the payment was also received at the time of supply. Accordingly the relevant entry was made by the appellant in the subsequent year when the draft was actually received by it. Therefore, both these entries have been accounted for by the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
