9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 1269X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e are also in agreement with the observations of the CIT(A) that admittedly the assessee vide its letter dated 30.4.2007 claimed that total sales of cloth during the year was at 15722.590 kgs. The assessee had purchased 27277 kgs of yarn out of which it produced 23886.86 kgs of cloth and sold cloth of 15722.590 kgs and declared 8435.823 kgs of cloth as its closing stock as on 31.3.2005. It is observed that before the CIT(A) the assessee had taken altogether a new plea that actual sales figures is 20223.73 kgs which appears to be an afterthought. In view of the assessee s letter dated 30.4.2007 addressed to the Assessing officer, we are of the view that the CIT(A) was fully justified in rejecting the ground raised by the assessee on merits. Accordingly, we uphold the order of CIT(A) in confirming the addition of ₹ 7,70,013/- made on account of suppression of sales of cloth. Consequently, we reject ground Nos. 1 and 2 of the appeal. Addition for want of proof from the assessee - amount as being payable to its ex-partners - HELD THAT:- Assessee has contended that the Assessing officer disallowed the amount on account of cessation of trading liabilities ignoring the fact pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hout appreciating the correct facts and by not allowing to place on record additional evidences being relevant to the dispute is bad in law and uncalled for. 2. (b) That without prejudice to above, the appellant disputes the quantum of addition as highly excessive. 3. (a) That Ld. CIT (A) is not justified in confirming the addition of ₹ 77,658/- being the amount payable to the expartners of the firm without appreciating the correct facts of the present case, hence the findings of authorities below are bad in law and uncalled for. 3. (b) That without prejudice to above, the appellant disputes the quantum of addition as highly excessive. 4. That Ld. CIT (A) is not justified in confirming addition on account of remission of liabilities shown in the balance sheet to the extent of ₹ 1,50,600/- without appreciating the correct facts, hence the findings of authorities below are bad in law and uncalled for. 5. (a) That Ld. CIT (A) is not justified in confirming the disallowance of adjustment of carry forward unabsorbed depreciation at ₹ 3,46,659/- without appreciating the correct facts and thus the impugned order is bad in law and uncalled for. 5. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... para 4 of the assessment order. The Assessing officer opined that the difference of 4450.940 kgs of cloth have been sold by the assessee outside the books of account. The Assessing officer accordingly made the addition of ₹ 7,70,013/- @ ₹ 173/- per kg keeping in view the assessee s letter dated 30.4.2007 wherein the assessee had shown sale of 1790.650 kgs of cloth for ₹ 30,09,960/-. The Assessing officer provided an opportunity to assessee to furnish its explanation in this regard but there was no response from the assessee. Consequently, the Assessing officer made addition of ₹ 7,70,013/- to the total income of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee vide its letter dated 18.12.2012 requested the Ld. CIT(A) for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962. The assessee submitted that the figures mentioned in its letter dated 30.04.2007 was not correct figure of sales of cloth, however, the correct figure of sales of cloth during the year is 20223.730 kgs. The assessee also produced certain photocopies of the sale bills as under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he AO any evidence which is relevant to any ground of appeal. iv) Where the AO has made the order appealed against without giving sufficient opportunity to the appellant to adduce evidence relevant to any ground of appeal. In the appellant's case none of the conditions referred to in Rule 46A is satisfied. The Assessing officer did not refuse to admit any evidence. The next issue to be examined is whether appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from producing the evidence. In this regard the appellant has not been able to justify as to how and why the sale bills were not produced. by him, to explain his contentions, during the course of assessment proceeding The appellant has not been able to justify as to what prevented him from producing these evidences for such a long time. The only other issues is whether the AO has made the order appealed against without giving sufficient opportunity to the appellant to adduce evidence relevant to any ground of appeal. From the facts on record it is clear that appellant was afforded sufficient opportunities to produce evidence. As per the assessment order, sufficient opportunity was provided to the appellant to file his exp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 007 that the total sales of cloth during the year under consideration was 15722.590 kg. Thus, the assessee has taken entirely a new stand in this case stating that actual sales figure is 20223.73 kg instead of 15722.590 kg. In such circumstances, the CIT(A) was fully justified in rejecting the application of the assessee filed for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules. 9. As regards, merits of the case, we are also in agreement with the observations of the CIT(A) that admittedly the assessee vide its letter dated 30.4.2007 claimed that total sales of cloth during the year was at 15722.590 kgs. The assessee had purchased 27277 kgs of yarn out of which it produced 23886.86 kgs of cloth and sold cloth of 15722.590 kgs and declared 8435.823 kgs of cloth as its closing stock as on 31.3.2005. It is observed that before the CIT(A) the assessee had taken altogether a new plea that actual sales figures is 20223.73 kgs which appears to be an afterthought. In view of the assessee s letter dated 30.4.2007 addressed to the Assessing officer, we are of the view that the CIT(A) was fully justified in rejecting the ground raised by the assessee on merits. Accordingl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 658/- on account of unsecured loans is unnecessary, unlawful and needs to be deleted. 13. On a perusal of the impugned order, we find that Ld. CIT(A) has not considered the above submissions of the assessee. The assessee has categorically stated that the impugned balances were not introduced during the year under consideration and are outstanding since long, which have been duly accepted by the Assessing officer for the preceding assessments The assessee further contended that the Assessing officer made the assessment for the assessment years 2004-05 and 2006-07 wherein the said balances were duly accepted without any objection. In that view of the matter we think it appropriate to set aside the order of CIT(A) on this issue and remand the matter to the Assessing officer with a direction to decide the issue afresh in accordance with law after affording due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. For statistical purposes, Ground No.3 of the appeal is allowed. 14. As regards ground No.4 of the appeal, the Assessing officer noted that out of the trading liabilities of ₹ 7,67,653/- the assessee failed to substantiate the liabilities to the extent of & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S. G. Exports, the Id. Assessing officer disallowed the balance amount of 150600/- on account of cessation of trading liabilities, ignoring the fact produced during assessment proceedings that the assessee himself has written off the balance amount of ₹ 144966/- payable to M/s Nice Grip Tools Exports in the subsequent 'A. Y. 2006-07, the assessment for which was finalized vide order dated 23.12.2008 without making any adverse inference in this regard. The impugned disallowance by the assessing officer is unnecessary and has just doubled the hardship of the assessee .due to double disallowance of the same amount Regarding the balances of other three arties, the balances in their cases are verifiable from their copies of accounts which could not be obtained and filed during the course of assessment proceedings due to unavoidable circumstances. Therefore, the impugned disallowance of ₹ 150600/- is baseless, not required and needs to be deleted. 17. It appears that the Ld. CIT(A) has not considered the above submissions of the assessee while passing the impugned order. The assessee has contended that the Assessing officer disallowed the amount of ₹ 1,50,600 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
