9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 406X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wance of interest thereof. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the finding of the ld.CIT(A), same is hereby upheld.- Decided against revenue. Addition on account of alleged excess claim of shortage - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the AO has not pointed out any specific defects in the books of account. The AO has also not resorted to the rejection of books of account, however, he made estimation on the basis that the yield as declared in earlier year which was higher than as claimed in the year under appeal. The basis of such finding as per AO is that normally in textile mill processing, there is percentage of shortage at 15 to 17% in the yield. The AO has not given any basis as to why he is not accepting the contention of the assessee when the assessee has placed all details before him with regard to yield. Under these facts, we do not see any reason to interfere with the finding of the ld.CIT(A), same is hereby upheld.- Decided against revenue. Addition made u/s.69B - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- We find that the AO has given finding that there was a difference between the quantity of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submit bill wise shortage to prove its claim and the sale price should have been higher if the shortage is higher, which is not in the assessee's case. [4] On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 3,78,690/- made u/s 69B for stock difference in spite of the fact that there was a huge difference between book stock and the stock given to the Bank, which the assessee was not able to explain satisfactorily. [5] On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. [6] It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the CIT(A) may be setside and that of Assessing Officer may be restored to the above extent. 2. Briefly stated facts are that the case of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny assessment and the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) was framed vide order dated 24/12/2010, thereby the Assessing Officer (AO in short) made various additions on account of disallowances of brokerage/commission expenses of ₹ 20,90,908/-, addition on account of suppressed sales ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... para-2.3 of his order by observing as under:- 2.3. . All these grounds taken by AO are very flimsy and superficial grounds. Without making any investigation or without identifying any defect in the books of account and bills or vouchers, conclusion drawn by AO cannot be held justified. The appellant has perfectly explained with proper reasons that why the commission expenses in the month of March in comparison to other months of year are high. All the relevant details, supported with documentary evidences have been filed by appellant before AO but not a single significant defect has been detected by AO. The details of sales made by agents, method of payments through account payee cheques in majority of the cases, TDS made on the payments and all other required details have been filed by appellant during assessment proceedings as well as appellate proceedings which justify the claim of appellant that the commission expenses re genuine and incurred for business purposes. In such situation, there is no justification in disallowance made by AO, therefore, I delete the addition of ₹ 20,90,908/- and allow the group of appeal. 4.1. The above finding of the ld.CIT(A) is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dition. 3.3. I have considered the facts on the issue and legal position on it. In this ground also, AO has given very superficial reasons to treat the loan as unexplained. The facts related to address, signature, etc. could have easily verified by him from the record of his own office were appellant as well as creditor both are assessed. He has not been able to find any defect or ingenuineness in the evidences given by appellant which prove the identity of the creditor, capacity of providing loan and genuineness of transaction. Identity and capacity of the creditor is proved by return of income filed and genuineness of transaction is also proved by filing the bank statement which reflect that payment was made through account pay cheque. Whatever objections are raised by AO, are irrelevant and superficial and not sustainable. In the light of documentary evidences furnished by appellant, the credit of ₹ 1,300,000/- and interest paid on it at ₹ 52,142/- is held as genuine and the addition made by AO is deleted. This ground is allowed. 5.2. From the above, it is evident that the ld.CIT(A) has given a finding on fact that the depositors were assessed to tax and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... As per chart given in the submissions, appellant has shown better results in the form of turnover, gross profit and net profit in comparison to earlier year. The books of account maintained by appellant have not been rejected and accepted by AO as complete and without any error. No defects have been pointed out by AO in those books of account. In plethora of judgments, different courts and tribunals have held that unless the books of account of assessee are rejected, no estimation can be made. The normal shortage worked out by AO from 15% to 17% in this line of business is based on which details is not made clear by AO. Such details are not confronted to appellant which is clearly violation of natural justice. Why only 2% of shortage has been disallowed, it is not made clear by AO. The major part of job work has been carried out by outside parties to whom payments have been made according to quality and quantity produced by them and in this respect all the relevant documents have been maintained by assessee and in these details no defect could be found by AO. Simply by saying that table showing bills-wise shortage was not provided by appellant to AO does not justify the disallowan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is no case made out to interfere with the order of the ld.CIT(A). 9. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that the AO has given finding that there was a difference between the quantity of stock furnished to its Banker and shown to the Revenue. The only question left with us is whether the information furnished to the Banker by the assessee was correct or not. The assessee has accepted the quantitative figure of stock given to its Banker and the same has been disclosed in the Audit Report which was enclosed while filing the return of income. In view of the fact that there was a quantitative difference in the stock furnished to the bank and submitted before the Revenue-Department by the assessee, we are unable to agree with the finding of ld.CIT(A), as it is not the case of assessee that the value adopted by him for bank and declared to Revenue is different but the quantity matches. Therefore, we hereby set aside the finding of the ld.CIT(A) on this issue and sustain the addition made by the AO. Thus, this ground of Revenue s appeal is allowed. 10. Ground Nos.5 6 are general ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
