9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 633X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Officer of ₹ 5,20,889 due to unaccounted fabrication work was affirmed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out any illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by the Tribunal while affirming the findings recorded by the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). - Decided against assessee. - ITA No.302 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 6-2-2014 - MR. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND MS. ANITA CHAUDHRY, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for Mr. S.K.Mukhi, Advocate JUDGMENT Ajay Kumar Mittal J.- This appeal has been preferred by the assessee under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... versy involved, as narrated in the appeal, may be noticed. The assessee is a resident of Ludhiana. She is engaged in the business of manufacture, purchase and sale of cloth and fabrication. She filed a return of income declaring an income at ₹ 2,80,161 for the assessment year 2005-06 on October 31, 2005. The return was selected for scrutiny. Upon notice, the assessee appeared and submitted the relevant documents. The Assessing Officer raised objections regarding the closing stock, unaccounted fabrication work and depreciation claimed by the assessee as under : (i) Difference of stock ₹ 28,73,640 (ii) Unaccounted fabrication work ₹ 5,20,889 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)). Vide order dated February 24, 2010, annexure A.2, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) partly allowed the appeal while upholding the additions made by the Assessing Officer. Still not satisfied, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. Vide order dated March 15, 2013, annexure A.3, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal while upholding the findings recorded by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on first two issues whereas the issue pertaining to depreciation was remanded to the Assessing Officer as the assessee made a prayer for placing on record certain bills regarding purchase of machinery by way of additional evidence. Hence, the present appeal by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has discussed the issue in detail and appreciated the ratio of various decisions cited and relied on by the parties. In view of the detailed and well reasoned order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), we do not find any ground to interfere with his findings and the same are upheld. 11. The appellant, vide ground No. 3 of the appeal raised the issue of confirmation of addition by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) of ₹ 5,20,889 (Rs. 87,385 + 30,000 + 4,03,505) under the head 'unaccounted fabrication work' without any base and reasons thereof. 12. The Assessing Officer made addition of ₹ 5,20,889 under the head 'unaccounted fabrication work' on examinatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mation of the addition of ₹ 1,45,214 by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), on account of depreciation claimed on machinery under TUFF. 15. In respect of this ground, the assessee has filed an application for admission of additional evidence under rule 29 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules and produced bills for the purchase of machinery under TUFF. The appellant has cited various case law. Having regard to the bills filed by the assessee which were not pro duced before the lower authorities, we deem it fit to admit the addi tional evidence with a view to advance the cause of justice. As the said bills were not produced before the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), consequent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
