9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1028X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty of the cotton purchased - Decided in favour of assessee Disallowance of expenses - Held that:- Ad hoc disallowance which has been made without pointing out any specific instances where the vouchers were not found. The addition has been made on the ground of probability of personal use in telephone and vehicle running expenses. However, since no specific instances have been indicated where the assessee was unable to produce the vouchers or submit the details in respect of these expenses, we find that this disallowance also deserves to be deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee - I. T. A. No. 509/Jodhpur/2017 - - - Dated:- 8-3-2018 - B. P. Jain (Accountant Member) and Sudhanshu Srivastava (Judicial Member) Suresh Ojha, Advocate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellate Tribunal and has challenged the action of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in sustaining these two additions. 3. The learned authorised representative submitted that the Assessing Officer had submitted a detailed reply with respect to the impugned purchases but the same was not appreciated in the right perspective by the Assessing Officer. It was submitted that the Assessing Officer had mentioned that the purchase value was higher than the prevailing market rate but the Assessing Officer did not appreciate that the goods purchased were pertaining to agricultural produce having various types of grades and standard and were not standard products like gold and silver which would have a standard/prevailing market rate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e prices alleged to be prevalent in the market on different dates between May 1, 2010 and March 1, 2011. Further it is seen that the Assessing Officer has not considered the assessee's contention that the quality of cotton varies due to moisture content and the extent of vegetable produce in the product. The Assessing Officer has mentioned this contention of the assessee at page 2 of the assessment order but he has not examined this contention of the assessee at all but has proceeded to make a lump sum addition of ₹ 2 lakhs on this account. It is also seen that the Assessing Officer has not made the addition in respect of specific bills where he was of the opinion that the prices paid were higher than the prevailing market prices. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
