9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 357X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion. Hence, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of ₹ 2,34,256/- was fully justified and, therefore, uphold the order of the CIT(A) - Decided against assessee Addition on undisclosed receivables - Held that:- As the assessee could not offer any explanation or furnish any evidence to the contrary therefore, the CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer held that contract receipts of ₹ 2,07,105/- remained to be credited to the bank account of the assessee as at the end of the year, which has not been shown as an asset in the balance sheet. Therefore, he made addition of ₹ 2,07,150/- to the income of the assessee. - Decided against assessee - ITA No. 446/CTK/2015 - - - Dated:- 29-3-2017 - SHRI N.S S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 2,34,256/- made by the Assessing Officer as unexplained money. 8. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders of lower authorities and materials available on record. The Assessing Officer found that a sum of ₹ 4,47,216/- was debited towards license fees in the profit and loss account which was in excess by ₹ 47,916/-. The actual license fee per month payable on liquor business during the relevant period was ₹ 32,275/- and therefore, the total expenditure was supposed to be ₹ 3,99,300/-(Rs.33,275 x 12). On verification of payments and receipts from the State Excise, it was found that a sum of ₹ 1,86,340/- was paid in adv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owing mercantile system of accounting. Thus, as per the consistently followed method of accounting by the assessee, which is mercantile system, only expenditure which has accrued and became due during the year is allowable deduction to the assesse as per section 145 of the Act. Ld A.R. of the assessee has not brought any positive material on record to controvert the findings of lower authorities that ₹ 2,34,256/- being license fee to State Excise was the expenditure for subsequent financial year 2011-12 and not for the year under consideration. Hence, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of ₹ 2,34,256/- was fully justified and, therefore, I uphold the order of the CIT(A) and dismiss the ground of appeal of the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
