9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1419X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed. Thus in my view the Assessing Officer as well as the Ld. CIT(A) were right not accepting the purchase figure disclosed by the assessee as correct. When certain addition on account of inflation of purchases has been made, there is no legal requirement of rejection of books of account. Though we agree with the findings of the Ld. A.O. has confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A), we are of the considered opinion that the valuation of closing stock has to be re-done by the Assessing Officer, by excluding the commission part from the total purchases. Coming to the issue of commission, the assessee has not demonstrated with the evidence its claim that the amount in question is not commission but reimbursement of expenditure incurred on behalf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded the amount of ₹ 55,414/- as gross profit. Further, the Ld. Assessing Officer based on the details obtained from Bharti Airtel Ltd., came to conclusion that the assessee had received 19,342 units as extra load in addition to claim/LAPU of ₹ 4,76,598/-. He estimated the sale at ₹ 4,82,550/- and as the assessee had disclosed a sale of ₹ 1,08,705/- made an addition of ₹ 3,73,845/- as undisclosed commission. The submission of the assessee that it received easy load recharge voucher as reimbursement of expenditure incurred on behalf of the Bharti Airtel Ltd., was rejected as no evidence was produced in support of the claim. The assessee carried the matter in appeal. 3. After considering the submissions of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see in kind. b. No evidence whatsoever was furnished by the assessee in support of its claim that part of the commission is reimbursement of expenditure or that, the commission does not pertained to the assessee. 6. The learned DR submitted that the assessee has been given adequate opportunity during the course of assessment proceedings as well as during the remand proceedings and that it failed to demonstrate as to what would be the correct profit of the assessee. He relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the same be upheld. 7. Rival contentions heard. A perusal of the papers on record as well as the assessment orders, demonstrate that figure of purchase recorded in the books of account, as well as audited s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cash on sale of recharge vouchers. The claim of the assessee is not supported by the evidence. Hence, we reject the same. 8. In view of the above discussion this issue of quantification of suppressed profit is set aside to the file of the A.O. for fresh computation in accordance with the directions stated in the above paragraphs. 9. Coming to the issue of commission, the assessee has not demonstrated with the evidence its claim that the amount in question is not commission but reimbursement of expenditure incurred on behalf of the Bharti Airtel Ltd. Hence this ground of the assessee is dismissed. The assessee has also not demonstrated that the commission pertains to the earlier accounting period. Hence this argument is also dismissed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
