9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 40X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... preciation – the AO is directed to adopt the figure as income from the transport business of the assessee – Decided partly in favour of Revenue. Addition made u/s 68 of the Act – Unaccounted cash credits – Held that:- The amounts if have been accounted for as income in the succeeding assessment year 2008-2009, the same could not be doubly taxed in the relevant assessment year 2007-2008 also – thus, matter is remitted back to the AO and he is is directed to verify from record and the ledger account of the different parties, and in case, the assesee has accounted for the amounts in question as income in the succeeding assessment year 2008-2009, no addition under section 68 of the Act – Decided in favour of Revenue. Disallowance of 1/3rd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e at 25% should not be estimated. He submitted that the CIT(A) has not advanced any valid reason for deleting the trading addition made by the AO. The learned counsel for the assessee has opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the assessee. He submitted that the assessee has declared net profit at 2.81% of the gross receipts of its transport business and the AO has applied the rate of 25% without allowing the expenses or even the depreciation claimed at Rs.15 lakhs and odds. He submitted that the total receipts of the assessee were of Rs.1,33,88,622/- and to assess the assessee at income of Rs.33,47,155/- by applying a flat rate of 25% and without allowing any expenditure therefrom, is arbitrary. 4. We have considered rival s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imated by the AO at Rs.33,47,155/- and the ground no.1 of the Revenue is partly allowed. 5. The ground no.2 of the Revenue's appeal is as under: 2. The ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.26,82,709/- made on account of cash credit u/s.68 of the Act. 6. The learned DR submitted that the plea that the amount in question were shown as income in the succeeding assessment year 2008-2009 was not taken by the assessee before the AO, and therefore, should be verified. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has accounted for the amounts in question as income in the succeeding assessment year 2008-2009 for which the copies of the ledger account of the parties have been filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accordingly, is dismissed. CO No.263/Ahd/2010 (Assessee's CO) 10. The CO of the assessee is barred by limitation by seven days. The assessee has filed an application for condolation of delay of seven days. We have heard both the parties on this issue. In the facts narrated by the assessee, we are of the view that the delay was caused due to sufficient reason, and therefore delay in presenting the CO before the Tribunal is condoned. 11. The grounds of the CO of the assessee are as under: 1. The ld.CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in confirming disallowance to the extent of 1/3rd of the cash expenses totaling to Rs.15,09,481/- 2. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld.CIT(A) ought not t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
