9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 394X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the peculiar facts of this case for the year under consideration. Considering all these facts and legal position, the Bench find no merit in sustaining this disallowance, hence, the same is hereby deleted. Lump sum disallowance on account of various expenses debited in the P&L account - Held that:- The appellant could not fully controvert the findings of the AO. However, the disallowance made by the AO appears to be on the higher side. Considering the volume and nature of business of the appellant, it would be fair and reasonable to restrict the disallowance to 50% of the amount disallowed by the AO. CIT(A) has reasonably restricted the disallowance at ₹ 28,866/-, therefore, the same is hereby upheld. - ITA No. 904/JP/2017 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ously obligatory on the part of department to accept audited accounts for tax purposes. ( b) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and facts in confirming provision of section 145(3) for rejecting the audited books of accounts is not justifiable the books of accounts maintained in regular course of business are presumed to be correct, complete and reliable, and books results cannot be disturbed without any material defect section 30 of Evidence Act. 2. Invalid Trading Addition of ₹ 10,95,619/- by Increasing GP Rate from 5.26% to 8% Arbitrarily:- That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and facts in confirming trading add ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 77; 28,866/- out of expenses are without justification. 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and facts in confirming not issuing proper and valid show cause notice before making addition / disallowance. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and facts in confirming in charging interest u/s 234B ₹ 124556/- interest u/s 234C ₹ 3364/- and interest u/s 234D ₹ 1700/-. 4. Ground No. 1 (a) (b) of the assessee s appeal were not pressed at the time of hearing, therefore, the same stands dismissed as not pressed. 5. Ground No. 2 of the appeal is against confirming the trading addition of ₹ 10,95,6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed above and stated that the AO was not justified in rejecting its books of accounts u/s 145 (3) of the Act as it has maintained day-to-day stock details. It was further submitted that the AO has applied a GP rate of 8% without appreciating the fact that its trading results were progressive and therefore, the trading addition made by the AO deserves to be deleted. ( iii) I have duly considered the submissions of the appellant, assessment order and the material placed on record. It is noted from the details furnished by the appellant during the appellate proceedings that it has maintained quantitative details of HDPE/PP bags only. It has not filed the quantitative details of the raw material consumed for manufacturing of bags. It is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der scrutiny assessments. It may further be mentioned that Smt. Gulab Devi Saruparia, the mother of the Karta of the appellant HUF, for the AY 2013-14 was also engaged in the similar business of trading and manufacturing of PP Woven Sacks and other packing material and on a turnover of ₹ 4,53,06,220/-, she has declared a GP rate of 7.25% which has been enhanced to 8% by the AO and vide my appellate order of the even date in the case of Smt. Gulab Devi Saruparia, the GP rate of 8% applied by the AO has been upheld. ( v) In view of these facts, it is held that the Assessing Officer was justified in making trading addition of ₹ 10,95,619/- to the income of the appellant by estimating GP rate at 8% and hence, the same is here ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n immediate preceding year. Further this was a new business started wherein the expenditure on account of rent and the stitching was comparably higher to the other established sister concern units. This fact has been compared with the rent and stitching expenses debited in the P L account of the assessee and in the P L account of sister concern in the name of Nakora Packaging Industries. Thus, the assessee is able to establish that the books results are comparable to the sister concern for the peculiar facts of this case for the year under consideration. Considering all these facts and legal position, the Bench find no merit in sustaining this disallowance, hence, the same is hereby deleted. 9. In the ground No. 3 of the assessee s appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
