9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 429X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n in the gross profit ratio but higher amount of gross profit in absolute figures. We are inclined to estimate the profit @ 1% of the turnover. Thus, the ground of assessee is partly allowed in terms of above. Disallowance u/s 68 on account of capital introduction by the partners - Held that:- It is undisputed fact that fresh capital was introduced by the partner of assessee-firm and in such case no addition can be warranted in the hands of assessee. It is because the fresh capital was introduced by the partner of the assessee-firm if any addition used to be made then it has to be added in the hands of partner. Therefore we reverse the order of Authorities Below. This ground of appeal assessee is allowed. Disallowance on account of no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ircumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of ₹ 5,26,350/- made by the AO on account of gross profit, which was wrongly estimated @ 2% of the turnover. 2. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of ₹ 2,75,000/- made by the AO in respect of capital introduction by wrongly invoking section 68 of the Act. 3. (a) For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of 33,87,197/- made by the AO on account of alleged nonexistent sundry creditors. ( b) For that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that no separate addition on account of sund ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee to vacate the shop, go-down instantly. Further the landlord has thrown all books of account so that assessee was unable to produce the same before the AO. However, Ld. CIT(A) disregarded the contention of assessee and confirmed the order of AO by observing as sunder:- Assessment year in question is 2010-11 and financial year is 2009-10. Assessment was completed on 22.03.2013. Assessee is stating that he was compelling to vacate the shop and godown in the month of April 2010. The appellant / assessee filed return of income tax for the Assessment Year 2010-11 on 05/10/2010 in ITR-5 and got Audited its accounts on 22/09/2010. The income shown in the return ₹ 22,340/- as per Audited books of account. If assessee books we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2.41 2 2009-10 14980376 295197 1.97 3 2010-11 46758142.55 408810.03 0.87 Ld. AR in view of the above, prayed that gross profit ratio declared by assessee should be accepted. On the other hand, Ld. DR for the Revenue vehemently relied on the order of Authorities Below. He left the issue to the discretion of the Bench. 5. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is undisputed fact that assessee failed to furnish the books of account during assessment proceedings. Therefore, in suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the ground of assessee is partly allowed in terms of above. 6. Next issue raised by assessee is that Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of AO by sustaining the disallowance of ₹ 2.75 lakh u/s 68 of the Act on account of capital introduction by the partners. 7. The assessee during the year has shown capital contribution of ₹ 2.75 lakh by its partners. The assessee in support of its fresh capital contribution has not provided any documentary evidence. Therefore, the AO was treated as undisclosed income and added to the total income of assessee. 8. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the order of AO. Being aggrieved by this order of Ld.CIT(A) assessee came in second appeal before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of assessee-firm and in such case no addition can be warranted in the hands of assessee. It is because the fresh capital was introduced by the partner of the assessee-firm if any addition used to be made then it has to be added in the hands of partner. Therefore we reverse the order of Authorities Below. This ground of appeal assessee is allowed. 11. Next issue raised by assessee in this appeal is that Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of AO by sustaining the disallowance of ₹ 33,83,197/- on account of non-existence creditors. 12. During the courses of assessment proceedings, AO has presumed that the creditors shown by assessee are non-existence. Accordingly, the creditors were disallowed and added to the total income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
