9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 655X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 – If Revenue is of the opinion that expenses are bogus then the onus is on Revnue to prove the fact – Decided against Revenue. Addition on account of Bogus/Ingenuine Sundry Creditors – Out of Rs.12,80,618/- only a sum of Rs.3,20,709/- was receivable by M/s. Mahesh Road Carriers from the assessee - Held that:- M/s Mahesh Road Carriers directly received sum of Rs. 9,52,553/- from the client of assessee in Nepal – The assessee has not accounted such payment in his books – Decided against Revenue. - I.T.A. No.1084/Kol/2010 - - - Dated:- 6-2-2013 - Shri P. K. Bansal, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - and the average cost of production per kg. thus worked out to Rs.118.21. The closing stock shown by the assessee was 12506 kgs. The AO, by applying the rate of Rs.118.21 per kg., worked out the value of the closing stock at Rs.14,78,334/-, while the assessee has shown the value of the closing stock at Rs.8,16,648/-. The AO did not agree with the contention of the assessee that the assessee is following the same method of valuation of the closing stock from the earlier. They valued the closing stock to the extent it relates to the opening stock is taken, the same as has been brought forward from the earlier year in respect of opening stock and to the extent closing stock is enhanced by the opening stock. As such, increased stock is valued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the closing stock. After hearing the ld. D.R., we are of the opinion that no interference is called for in the order of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) has given a finding of fact, after appreciating the working of the closing stock as worked out by the assessee and by the AO, no mistakes in the working of the CIT(A) was brought to our knowledge by the ld. D.R. Under these facts, we are of the view that the CIT(A) has rightly reduced the valuation of the closing stock as worked out by the AO and thereby allowed the relief to the assessee. We, therefore, confirm the order of the CIT(A) on this ground and dismiss the ground no.1 taken by the Revenue. 5. Ground no.2 relates to disallowance of transportation charges amounting to Rs.17,92,764/-. Bri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sts any discrepancy in the amount of the expenditure claimed by the assessee and the transport charges received by M/s. Mahesh Road Carriers from the assessee as existing in the books of M/s. Mahesh Road Carriers. The CIT(A) has given a finding of fact. In our opinion, the onus is on the Revenue, if the Revenue came in appeal to adduce the evidence that the finding given by the CIT(A) is not correct. In the absence of any cogent material being brought out on record or being submitted before us, we do not have any alternate except to confirm the order of the CIT(A). We accordingly confirm the order of the CIT(A) and dismiss the ground taken by the Revenue. Hence, the ground no.2 stands dismissed. 7. Ground no.3 relates to the deletion o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
