9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 800X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ced that the finding of ld. CIT(A) is based on material fact available on record and do not require any further interference at our end. Thus, Ground No.1 raised by assessee is dismissed. Cash expenses disallowance - Held that:- The assessee failed to substantiate his claim even before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) observed that the salary expenditure of ₹ 264.44 Lakhs (except expenditure of ₹ 25,000/- by cheque) has been shown in cash. Since the assessee has to failed to substantiate and provide the details before the AO as well as before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) however, restricted the disallowance to ₹ 8,00,000/-. Before us, the assessee failed to substantiate his claim as to why the addition be deleted. As th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elevant AY on 17.09.2011 declaring total income of ₹ 72,77,390/-. The assessment was completed on 21.03.2014 u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 145 of the Act. The Assessing Officer (AO) while passing the assessment order besides the other addition and disallowance made the addition of ₹ 86,136/- on account of nongenuine creditors, whose credit were more than three years on 31.03.2011, addition of ₹ 10,00,000/- on account of cash expenses. Addition of ₹ 2,30,85,000/- on account of cash credit u/s 68 of the Act being addition to partner s capital by way of cash and further made the addition of ₹ 2,73,48,477/- on the basis of Gross Profit ratio @ 6% after rejecting books of account. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the addition o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to addition on account of cash expenses. It was argued that assessee has shown the creditors from 01.01.2000 or prior thereto. |The assessee has not shown the genuineness of creditors nor furnished the ledger account of subsequent years. With regard to the partial sustaining of addition on account of cash expenses, it was argued that the assessee was showing the huge expenses in cash. The entire salary expenditure was shown in cash, the other expenses shown to have incurred on employees who were also in cash. The assessee has not furnished cash book. The assessee furnished the CD in such a format which could not be opened for perusal. Thus, the assessee failed to furnish and substantiate the claim of cash expenses. The ld. DR for the Revenu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) however, restricted the disallowance to ₹ 8,00,000/-. Before us, the assessee failed to substantiate his claim as to why the addition be deleted. As the assessee has neither come forward nor substantiate his claim. Thus, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by ld. CIT(A). 6. In the result, appeal filed by assessee is dismissed. 7. Though, the Revenue in its appeal has raised as many as five grounds of appeal. However, as per our considered view, there is only three substantial ground of appeal which we summarized as under: ( i) Whether ld. CIT(A) erred in accepting the additional evidence during the appellate stage without providing opportunity to AO. ( ii) Whether ld. CIT(A) erred in dele ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pliers, invoice number, bill date, amount and number of bales. The assessee also furnished its opening stock, name of supplier, invoice number, bill date, amount and number of bales. The order of ld. CIT(A) does not reveals, if all these documents were referred to the AO for verification for seeking his comment. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the G.P. ratio for AY 2009-10 2010-11 declared by assessee granted full relief to the assessee by deleting the entire addition. In our considered view, the approach of ld. CIT(A) was not fair. The AO was not given an opportunity for verification of the documents. Similarly, for deleting the addition u/s 68 of the Act of ₹ 2,30,85,000/-. The assessee relied upon the I.T. returns of the partner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
