9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2012 (1) TMI 225X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the revenue. It is further mentioned in the grounds of appeal that the ld. CIT has erred in holding that the assessee has suppressed the job charges received from M/s. Sidhi Vinayak Fab Text (P) Ltd. to the tune of Rs. 2,70,872/- by disclosing the job receipt at Rs. 1,13,40,612/- only as against Rs. 1,16,11,484/-. 2.2 In this case, the assessment order u/s 143(3) was passed by the AO on 19-04- 2007.The AO while passing the assessment order has made the disallowance of only Rs. 10,000/-. The assessee is engaged in the business of processing of cloth on job work basis and also sale of cloth. The AO issued a detailed query letter dated 2-11-2006 and in response to which the ld. AR of the assessee and his Accountant attended the proceeding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of M/s. Siddhi Vinayak Fab Tex (P) Ltd. in the books of the assessee and the corresponding ledger account of the assessee in the books of Siddhi Vinayak Fab Tex (P) Ltd. was filed. The CIT observed that books of accounts were not produced before him in support of the said submission by the assessee. This submission is not acceptable as M/s. Siddhi Vinayak Fab Tex (P) Ltd. has deducted tax regularly upto 31.03.2005 and in case any discount would have been allowed, the same should have been reduced from the gross amount and tax would have been deducted only on net amount. This means that assessee has shown the discount just to reduce its income as till 31.03.2005 nothing was decided about discount and it was decided only after close of year. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Trib.) (2011) dt. 09.07.2010 3. CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 31 DTR 1/ 227 CTR 133 (Delhi) (HC) 4. M/s Vodafone Essar South Ltd. Vs. CIT 2011-TIOL-417-ITATDEL dt. 24.07.2011 5. CIT Vs. Gaberil India Ltd. 203 ITR 108, 113, 114 (Bom.) 6. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC) 2.6 The ld. AR further submitted as under:- "Before the CIT assessee has reconciled the difference between the job charges declared in the books of accounts and that as per the TDS certificate. The CIT has not accepted this reconciliation for the reason that books of accounts were not produced before him. This is a lame excuse to justify his order u/s 263 in as much as assessee has filed the ledger account in support of the same in which no discrep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interest of revenue, the order passed u/s 263 needs to be quashed as held in the following cases. 1. H.H. Maharaja Pawer Dewas Vs. CIT 138 ITR 518 (MP) 2. Smt. Lila Choudhary Vs. CIT 167 Taxman 1 (Gau.) 2.7 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the order of the AO 2.8 We have heard both the parties. The ld. CIT noticed that during the course of proceedings u/s 263 of the Act the amount shown is more as compared to the amount shown by the assessee in its books of accounts. The difference is on account of discount which according to the assessee is not included in the receipts mentioned in the TDS certificate. According to the ld. CIT, the AO has not examined this issue and the AO has not even discussed the issue in the assessment or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
