9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 397X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs.35,95,655/- as the assessee had failed to produce any document to substantiate his claim of expenses of Rs.35,95,655/- in respect of various parties from whom information u/s 133(6) had been called for." 3. The facts of the case are that the assessee derives income from transportation business. During the year under consideration, the assessee has shown the receipt at Rs.90,22,307/- on which the net loss of Rs.2,92,367/- was declared. In the books of account, the assessee has claimed an expenditure of Rs.83,49,215/- on account of lorry hire expenses. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer called for information under Section 133(6) from the brokers through whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant has arranged transportation. The AO has not rejected the books of account u/s 145(2). It is beyond comprehension that out of total receipt of Rs.90,22,352/- the appellant had booked bogus expenditure to the tune of Rs.35,95,655/-. The appellant has shown me the total corresponding receipts of Rs.37,85,785/-. The AO while declaring the expenditure as bogus should have done something more to establish his case. Mere return of letters and non-response of parties are not adequate to establish the case of AO. AO's observation that the appellant is not left with a single penny is misconceived because the hire charges received from different clients are not recorded on challans and what is there on lorry challan is rate and payments ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee were Rs.83,49,215/-. The assessee has furnished the details before the learned CIT(A) pointing out that in respect of the hire charges of Rs.35,95, 655/- paid by the assessee, there was a corresponding receipt of Rs.37,85,785/-. He, therefore, submitted that the order of learned CIT(A) should be sustained. 6. We have carefully considered the arguments of both the sides and perused relevant material placed before us. We find that out of 36 cases quoted by the Assessing Officer at pages 1 & 2 of the assessment order, in respect of 34 cases, no reply has been received from the parties or the letter issued was received back unserved. In our opinion, if the broker has not replied to the letter of the Assessing Officer, no adverse inference ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
