9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1692X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") dated 26/03/2015 relevant to Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13. 2. The Revenue has raised the followings grounds of appeal : "That the ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 80,00,000/- made on account of trade deposit received by the assessee treated as revenue receipt." 3. The only issue raised by the Revenue in this appeal is that Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO for Rs. 80,00,000/- on account of treating the trade deposit as Revenue receipt. 4. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee in the present case is an individual and engaged in the business of automobile dealer and service centre. The assessee, during the year has shown certai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh them. Since the appellant's vehicles are kept with ARDs and SSPs for display, test drive etc at different locations, trade deposits were received from them by way of security. Confirmation letters in this regard from ARDs and SSP were furnished to the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. When the sale actually takes place, they are booked by the applicant and corresponding trade deposits were returned to ARDs and SSPs. The-opening credit Balance in the name of six ARDs and SSPs stood at Rs. 44,71,107/-, during the year of deposits of Rs. 35.5 lakhs is received, an amount of Rs. 26 lakhs was repaid leaving the balance of Rs. 54,21,107/- in the books of accounts. AO's action in assessing the security trade deposits recei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... received during the year were only the tune of Rs. 9.5 lakhs. Keeping in view the facts of the case, impugned addition is deleted. This ground of appeal is allowed." 4.1 In the A.Y. 2011-12 as well, the ld. CIT(A) and my predecessor has allowed the appeal of the appellant on the same ground. Since the facts of the case in this year are same, by respectfully following the orders of my predecessor for A.Y. 2010-11 and 2011-12, I am inclined to accept the contention of the appellant and the addition is deleted. Accordingly, original grounds Nos.1 and 2 are allowed." Being aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A) revenue is in second appeal before us. Both the parties before us relied on the order of authorities below as favourable to them. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see had received trade deposits of Rs. 35.5 lacs and has repaid Rs. 26 lacs out of it and in effect the net trade received by the assessee during the year was only to the tune of Rs. 9.5 lacs. Under these circumstances, Ld.CIT(A) had deleted the addition. Before us, Revenue has not placed any material to controvert the findings / of Ld.CIT(A). In view of the aforesaid facts, we see no reason to interfere with the order of Ld. CIT(A) and thus this ground of Revenue is dismissed."
7. Respectfully following the same, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of Ld. CIT(A). Hence, Revenue's ground of appeal is dismissed.
8. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
This Order pronounced in Open Court on 24/05/2018 X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
