9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 328X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0,000/- is made aggregating to ₹ 3,69,407/- and this also needs to be examined by AO. Therefore, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes in respect of aforementioned observation. Disallowance of freight - Held that:- Assessee has not been provided cross-examination of proprietor of Chacha Transport Co. and, therefore, the matter is restored back to the file of AO to provide opportunity to cross-examine the proprietor of Chacha Transport Co. Accordingly, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA no. 4693/Del/2014 - - - Dated:- 8-11-2016 - SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA : ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Appellant : Shri Prem Prakash Adv. and Shri Ashish Advocate For The Respondent : Shri S.K. Jain Sr. DR ORDER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de cash payment on different dates to Chacha Transport Co. totaling to ₹ 9,94,234/- against freight delivery charges. The AO pointed out that these were transportation charges and not purchase bills and, therefore, the AO required the assessee to show as to why these amounts were shown in purchase account. The assessee s explanation, as observed by AO, was as under: In response, counsel of the assessee filed written explanation stating therein that it transported slak through trucks booked through the Agency Chacha Transport Company and truck freight were paid directly to the truck owner through the truck drivers. It was further stated that Chacha Trannport provide trucks on commission received from the truck owner and the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ental Cement Co. ( A Unit of Tayal Concast Pvt Ltd.) and the bill shown to him are forged one as no such bills/builty have been issued by their transport company. The relevant portion of the statement are reproduced below: 5. Relevant portion of statement in Hindi has been reproduced at page 27 of the assessment order. The AO, accordingly, made addition of ₹ 9,94,234/-. The AO had made other additions also. 6. Ld. CIT(A), while partly allowing the assessee s appeal, confirmed both the above additions. Being aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before us and has taken following grounds of appeal: 1. That the order is against law facts on record.That Ld. CIT(A) was wrong in not allowing payments U/s 40A(3) without any base. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounts; but yet the accounts may be accepted as genuine and substantially correct. In such cases, the assessments are made on the basis of the accounts maintained even though the assessing officer may add back to the accounts price of items that might have been omitted to be included in the accounts. In such a case, the assessment made is not a best judgment assessment. It is primarily made on the basis of the accounts maintained by the assessee. But, when the assessing officer comes to the conclusion that no reliance can be placed on the accounts maintained by the assessee, he proceeds to assess the assessee on the basis of his best judgment . In doing so, he may take such assistance as the assessee's accounts may afford; he may als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
