9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 184X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er recorded the full address of the agriculturists and it was the general practice of the assessee over the years. As per list submitted by the assessee before authorities in respect of trade creditors, there are trade creditors running into hundreds. The Assessing Officer did not dispute all these facts and only proceeded to disallow 5% of the trade creditors, after considering that the assessee had disclosed ₹ 25 lakhs in the earlier year. Under these circumstances, the CIT(A) held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer does not have legs to stand. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) and uphold the same. - Decided against revenue. Payments to APNPDCL violating the provisions of rule 6DD - CIT(A) allow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .Y. 2007-08 admitting a total income of ₹ 50,06,652. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961 and was later selected for scrutiny and notices u/s. 143(2) and 143(1) were issued. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to produce (i) trade creditors with address, (ii) ledger, (iii) details in partner capital account (electricity charges, (v) bank loan details, etc. Vide show-cause notice dated 23.12.2009 it was proposed by the Assessing Officer to add back 10% of the cultivator creditors as assessee failed to furnish full postal addresses. However, later considering that the assessee had already disclosed ₹ 25,00,000 in the earlier assessment year, the Assessing Officer restricted the proposed addition to 5% ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8 and to purchase peace with the department and filed the returns of income as under: Sl. No. Name of the assessee A.Y. Return of income Income offered for tax (Rs. 1. Padigela Rajeswar Ginning Industries 2006-07 Revised 25,00,000 2. Padigela Kedarnath HUF 2006-07 Original 5,00,000 3. Padigela Kedarnath Industries 2006-07 -do- 7,50,000 4. Smt. Padigela Rama Devi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the addition made by the Assessing Officer appears to be an addition made under impression that the assessee had not returned the whole of additional income of ₹ 50 lakhs as accepted during the survey proceedings. The CIT(A) observed that the assessee had declared an amount of ₹ 50 lakhs as additional income in respect of the firm as well as the individual partners. It was further observed that the Assessing Officer had not disputed the purchases made, the turn over achieved, consumption, closing stock, trade results, etc. The CIT(A) stated that as per list submitted by the assessee in respect of trade creditors, there are trade creditors running into hundreds. The CIT(A) pointed out that the Assessing Officer did not dispute a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uce them nor any. postal addresses furnished 2. The learned CIT(A), 'allowed the submission that the general trade practice that the full address of the supplier of cotton are not gathered at the time of purchase, only name and place are recorded, as the payment is made after the receipt of the goods, which in present case is not disputed, hence addition of 5% of the creditors. Though the above version was accepted partly, the assessee failed to produce the concerned parties. 3. The learned CIT(A), erred in allowing ₹ 50.00 lakhs in the hands of the firm. Yes, it is submitted that the assessee-firm had admitted ₹ 25.00 lakhs in the firm's hand and balance in the hands of the partners. But, the assessee fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; 25 lakhs was disclosed in the hands of the partners. The Assessing Officer had not disputed the purchases made, the turn over achieved, consumption, closing stock, trade results, etc. The assessee submitted that it never recorded the full address of the agriculturists and it was the general practice of the assessee over the years. As per list submitted by the assessee before authorities in respect of trade creditors, there are trade creditors running into hundreds. The Assessing Officer did not dispute all these facts and only proceeded to disallow 5% of the trade creditors, after considering that the assessee had disclosed ₹ 25 lakhs in the earlier year. Under these circumstances, the CIT(A) held that the addition made by the Asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
