9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 369X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not show any factory nor any depreciation on any factory, the items stated in Clauses 35(bA) and 35(bB) were not borne out by any purchase or sales invoices. The AO has rejected Books of Accounts Under section 145(3) on the doubt that the assessee was engaged in manufacturing of chemicals which activity was not disclosed by the assessee. It is apparent that the assessee is able to explain that there was typographical error due to switching between two different clients screens simultaneously and as a result, the data of the other client was cut and pasted in clause 10(a) and 11 and corresponding clauses 35(bA) and 35(bB) in form No. 3CB and CD of the assessee s report. Hence, there is no manufacturing and it is only dealing in the business of trading of acids and chemicals. The CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition and this issue of Revenue s appeal is dismissed - decided in favor of assessee. - ITA No. 6709/Mum/2018, CO No. 248/Mum/2019 (Arising out of ITA No.6709/Mum/2018 for AY 2015-16) - - - Dated:- 29-11-2019 - Sri Mahavir Singh, JM And Sri Waseem Ahmed, AM For the Appellant : Shri Amit Pratap Singh, DR For the Responde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and bye-products is given. The assessee filed the copy of purchase summary with sample of bills, soft copy of sale summary with summary bills, expenses of ledger account and stock register and also furnished requisite trading details. 4. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee is in manufacturing and hence, he added the estimated closing stock of ₹ 2,62,92,142/- being manufacturing stock. The assessee explained before the Assessing Officer that in view of the information regarding manufacturing details there was a typographical error due to computer cut and paste operation switching between the files, while preparing audit report in form No. 3CD clause 10A,11,35(aB) and 35(bB). It was explained that due to that error, the details of another assessee are posted in the said form of the assessee and it is not a manufacturer firm. For this, he gave various explanation but the Assessing Officer did not accept. The assessee explained that there is no manufacturing details, no manufacturing account and it is not registered with Central Excise and Customs but the Assessing Officer even after going into the following details noted that the assessee is a manufac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st not take advantage of ignorance of an assessee as to his rights. It is one of their duties to assist a taxpayer in every reasonable way, particularly in the matter of claiming and securing reliefs and in this regard, the officers should take the initiative in guiding a taxpayer where proceedings or other particulars before them indicate that some refund or relief is due to him. It is evident from the comparative gross profit net profit and sales ratio of the firm that appellant has consistently improve in terms of sales and net profit over a period of time. After considering the totality of facts, rival submissions, the applicable law and o the basis of discussion mentioned above, I find force in the argument of the appellant and draw strength from the judicial decision, it is difficult to accept that the books of accounts of the assessee are defective or incomplete from which the correct profit cannot be computed. Therefore, the addition made by the AO cannot be justified. The AO is directed to delete the addition of ₹2,62,92,142/-. This ground is allowed. Aggrieved, now Revenue is in appeal before Tribunal. 6. We hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rboy/ drum to drum basis and assessee does not have any factory/ godown. The accounts were subject to audit Under section 44AB of the Act. The audit report was uploaded hurriedly for filing the return on date 30.09.2015. While uploading the report in Form 3CB/3CD, there was typographical error due to switching between two different clients , screens simultaneously, as a result the data of the other client was cut and passed in Clause 10(a) and 11 and corresponding clauses 35bA and 35bB in the assessee s report. The above typographical error was explained to the AO vide letter dated 20.12.2017 along with other proof that the dealer is not a manufacturer having stock of raw materials and finished goods. The books of accounts and final accounts did not show any manufacturing account. No manufacturing expenses such as wages, processing charges were claimed by the assessee. The accounts did not show any factory nor any depreciation on any factory, the items stated in Clauses 35(bA) and 35(bB) were not borne out by any purchase or sales invoices. The AO has rejected Books of Accounts Under section 145(3) on the doubt that the assessee wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
