9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 521X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h return stood reconciled - As for addition made for unclaimed liability CIT(Appeals) had deleted after giving clear finding that it was a balance carried forward from an earlier year - As for addition made under section 44AE of Act, it is not disputed that lorry was utilized for business purposes and never given on hire - CIT(A) had deleted this addition rightly relying on decision of Allahabad High Court in case of Banwari Lal Banshidhar [1997 (5) TMI 37 - ALLAHABAD High Court] – No reason to interfere with order of CIT(A) – Decided against Revenue. - ITA No.: 862/Kol/ 2012 - - - Dated:- 26-11-2013 - Mahavir Singh And Abraham P George, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Saurabh Kumar, Sr D R For the Respondents : Shri A K Chakraborty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... figures and held that 1.83% of gross profit was appropriate in the case of assessee also for the impugned assessment year. An addition was made accordingly. 4. Assessing Officer also verified the statement from IOC for purchases made by assessee. As per Assessing Officer, there was a difference of Rs.16,43,505/- between what was accounted by the assessee as purchase and what was stated by IOC Ltd. This difference of Rs.16,43,505/- was treated as bogus claim of purchase and added to the total income of assessee. 5. Assessing Officer held the claim of shortage of HSD to be bogus. Form No. 3CD submitted by assessee along with the return mentioned that there were shortage of 8410 litres of HSD. As per Assessing Officer, no explanation was g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ge could not be made. Thereafter CIT(Appeals) sought a remand report of the Assessing Officer. In the remand report dated 20.10.2011, Assessing Officer confirmed that there was no bogus purchase. As far the addition for difference in closing balance with M/s. IOC Ltd. CIT(Appeals) noted that assesee had filed an incorrect balance-sheet with the return of income. Assessee was holding two drafts in favour of assesese for Rs.7,80,000/- as a part of its closing balance. According to him when these two drafts were considered, debit balance in the accounts of M/s. IOC Ltd. in the books of assessee stood explained. CIT(Appeals) also noted that the Assessing Officer had not disputed such claim of assessee in the remand report. As far the explained ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cted, in our opinion, there is no case for such an addition. In the case of addition for bogus purchase, Assessing Officer himself has admitted in the remand report that the parties had confirmed the sales. Vis-a-vis addition made for difference in accounts of IOC Ltd. CIT(Appeals) accepted the claim of the assessee that balance-sheet filed alongwith the return stood reconciled. As for the addition made for unclaimed liability CIT(Appeals) had deleted after giving a clear finding that it was a balance carried forward from an earlier year. As for addition made under section 44AE of the Act, it is not disputed that lorry was utilized for business purposes and never given on hire. In our considered opinion, ld. CIT(Appeals) had deleted this ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
