9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 916X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icular month by the assessee, may be a good reason to provoke inquiry in this regard, but itself is not sufficient to make any addition/disallowance – Thus, the CIT(A) is justified in holding that the basis taken by the AO is misplaced and the books of accounts produced by the assessee are not rejected by the AO - No arithmetic formula to co-relate the wages with the production and estimate the suppression on account of variation in wages, is sustainable – Decided against Revenue. Deletion made on account of discount/rate difference expenses – Supporting evidence not failed – Held that:- The assessee is the best judge for its affairs, and it is the decision of the assessee to provide discount to its customers depending upon the nature a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tten submissions with the request that the same may be considered while deciding the appeal of the Revenue. Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue is being disposed of after hearing the learned DR and after considering the written submissions filed by the assessee-respondent. 3. The ground no.1 of the appeal of the Revenue is as under: "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.8,85,249/- made on account of suppressed production as the fact that the wages paid are not proportionate to the production made in the month of February, 2008 in comparison to other months." 4. The learned DR has relied on the order of the AO. He referred to relevant paras of the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... count books and no discrepancy therein could be established on behalf of the Revenue. The higher payment of wages in a particular month by the assessee, may be a good reason to provoke inquiry in this regard, but itself is not sufficient to make any addition/disallowance. In these facts, we hold that the CIT(A) is justified in holding that the basis taken by the AO is misplaced and the books of accounts produced by the assessee are not rejected by the AO. No arithmetic formula to co-relate the wages with the production and estimate the suppression on account of variation in wages, is sustainable. In these view of the matter, we confirm the order of the CIT(A) on this issue and the ground no.1 of the Revenue's appeal is dismissed. 7. The g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... along with their names and amount of job work and discount/claim /rate difference allowed to each of the customer were filed. The AO could not point any defect therein. The job work charges were received by the assessee almost entirely in cheque. The assessee submitted that the method of accounting had been consistently followed year after year, and there is no case for disallowance made by the AO. 10. We have considered the submissions of learned DR and have perused the written submissions filed by the assessee, and orders of the AO and the CIT(A). We find that the only reason advanced by the AO to make disallowance is that, there is no fixed criterion for providing benefit to the customers in the form of discount/rate difference/ claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
