9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 655X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.17,92,764/- on account of Bogus & Inflated Transportation Charges. iii) That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.9,59,909/- on account of Bogus/Ingenuine Sundry Creditors." 2. At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Since the matter is very old and has been adjourned several times, we decided to dispose off this appeal, after hearing the ld. D.R. 3. Brief facts in respect of ground no.1 are that the AO noticed, during the course of assessment proceedings that in respect of the proprietorship concern, M/s. Abhishek Plastic Industries, 138800 kgs. of raw materials was consumed which yielded 112947 k ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng account it is perceived that the amount of labour charges of Rs.5,76,000/- is on the credit side of the account and hence corresponding expenses must be on the debit side, hence, when both expense and income elements are included in the manufacturing account the balance in manufacturing account cannot be further reduced. However, as per above explanations and evidences produced sums of Rs.17,04,444/- and Rs.23,97,240/- are deductible from Rs.l,33,51,420/- to determine the valuation of closing stock. The valuation of closing stock thus comes to Rs.8,33,413/- [ Rs.9249736/l38800 kgs into valuation stock of 12506.06 kgs] as against Rs.14,78,334 worked out by the AO. The appellant, thus, gets a relief of Rs.6,44,921/-." 4. The ld. D.R. even ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .3.2006 in respect of transport charges received from the assessee. Similarly, copy of the ledger account of M/s. Mahesh Road Carriers in the books of the assessee along with the copy of the bills were also filed before the CIT(A) which shows the transport charges to the extent of Rs.20,88,053/-. The assessee explained how the AO worked out the figure of Rs.2,95,269/- ignoring the copy of the accounts of the assessee in the books of M/s. Mahesh Road Carriers. The CIT(A), after perusing the copy of the ledger account of the assessee in the books of M/s. Mahesh Road Carriers for the relevant year, found that no discrepancy existed in the amount of the expenditure claimed by the assessee on account of M/s. Mahesh Road Carriers and therefore, h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceived by M/s. Mahesh Road Carriers from the client in Nepal, belonging to the assessee and not accounted for by the assessee till 31.03.2006. This fact was duly stated in the copy of the letter dated 03.09.2008 written by M/s. Mahesh Road Carriers addressed to the AO. There was a nominal difference of Rs.7,356/- on account of the difference in the quantum of the bills raised and accounted during the year by both the parties. Before the CIT(A), the assessee repeated the submissions made before the AO. The CIT(A), after appreciating the materials and documents filed by the assessee, found the contention of the assessee to be correct and deleted the addition of Rs.9,59,909/- 8. Before us, even though the ld. D.R. vehemently relied on the ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
