9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 231X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s treated this amount as suppressed sales, which is completely unjustified. Counsel explained the Bench with help of reconciliation statement that the entry in the stock register dated 08.08.2013 relates to advance received from M/s Bagaria Brothers Pvt. Ltd. of ₹ 1,75,00,000/- which has been inadvertently entered into the stock register and therefore it resulted into difference but if the said sum is excluded then there will not be any difference in the quantity of the stock register. The ld. D.R. has also fairly agreed with the reconciliation of stock submitted by the assessee, as noted above. Considering the explanation submitted by the assessee and taking into account the stock reconciliation statement, we note that there is no any suppressed sales, hence we delete the addition. Ground of assessee allowed. Disallowance of operating expenses - HELD THAT:- Reconciliation of the operating expenses has neither been examined by Assessing Officer nor by ld. CIT(A). Therefore, ld. Counsel prayed the Bench that this issue may be remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer for his examination. Ld. D.R. did not have any objection if the matter is remitted back to the fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal raised by the assessee are as follows: 1. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming the addition made by the A.O. of ₹ 1,75,00,000/- on account of alleged suppressed sales. 2. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of ₹ 21,52,08,544/- made by the A.O. on account of disallowance of operating expenses. 3.For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. C1T(A) grossly erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 9,27,919/- made by the A.O. on account of travelling expenses, which he ought to have allowed in entirety. 4.For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of ₹ 3,35,960/- made by the A.O. under the head subscription and donation. 5.That the appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete all or any of the grounds of appeal. 3. Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee relates to addition made by the Assessing Officer of ₹ 1,75,00,000/- on account of alleged suppressed sales. 4. Brief facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there was a discrepancy between the value of total sales as shown in month wise sale statement as submitted by the assessee below: Domestic Sales : ₹ 26.71 crores Export Sales : ₹ 74.24 crore Total ₹ 100.95 crore (Ref. page 23 of paper book) Sales as per the monthly stock statements (iron Ore fines) is furnished by the ld. Cousnel as follows: Sl. No. Place Amount of Sales Page no. of P/B (a) Haldia ₹ 19.40 cr 48 (b) Paradip ₹ 74.24 cr 49 (c) Vizag ₹ 9.06 cr 50 ₹ 102.70 cr Thus, the Assessing Officer made addition of ₹ 1.75 crores, being the difference between ₹ 102.70 cr ₹ 100.95 cr. The ld. Counsel explained the difference of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he figure shown in the sales register. It was explained to the Assessing Officer that the same was entered into the stock register because of the wrong setting of accounts in the computer system. As such it was wrongly entered into the stock register. Assessing Officer s attention was also drawn on the fact that had the same has been sales, there would have been an entry of stock quantity in the outward column. The assessee company, also produced the bank statement and the ledger copy of the party, but ignoring all the evidences produced before him, the Assessing Officer has treated this amount as suppressed sales, which is completely unjustified. We note that the ld. Counsel produced before us the reconciliation of stock which is reproduced below: The ld. Counsel explained the Bench with help of the above reconciliation statement that the entry in the stock register dated 08.08.2013 relates to advance received from M/s Bagaria Brothers Pvt. Ltd. of Rs. 1,75,00,000/- which has been inadvertently entered into the stock register and therefore it resulted into difference but if the said sum is excluded then there will not be any difference in the quantity of the stock re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee was asked to show cause about the said differences is not correct and contrary to record. f) The purported hand written extract at para 4.1 appears to be some rough reconciliation made by the A/R on 29.12.2016 (last day of proceedings as per Order Sheet Entry at page 33). The same has no evidentiary value and ought not to have been used by the A.O. to saddle the assessee with huge tax liability when no show -cause notice was ever issued and the assessee was never ever given an opportunity to explain the entire affair. g) The A.O. computed a purported difference of ₹ 21,52,08,544/- based on the on - the - spot rough reconciliation made by the A/R on 29.12.2016 without giving any opportunity to apply mind and file a proper reconciliation. This was done without issuing a show- cause notice sufficiently in advance and without affording a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to explain its case in gross violation of principles of natural justice. 10. The ld. Counsel submitted before us that above mentioned reconciliation of the operating expenses has neither been examined by Assessing Officer nor by ld. CIT(A). Therefore, ld. Counsel prayed the Bench that thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly submitted before the Bench that the assessee has not submitted the bills and vouchers relating to subscription and donation during the assessment stage. The counsel stated that now the assessee is ready to submit the vouchers and bills of the subscription and donation therefore, one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to explain the genuineness of the subscription and donation before Assessing Officer. Therefore, ld. Counsel prayed the Bench that this issue should be remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer for his examination. The ld. D.R. for the revenue did not have any objection if this ground are remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the ld CIT(A) and other materials available on record. In ground no. 4 the Assessing Officer made addition of ₹ 3,35,960/- under the head subscription and donation, as the assessee failed to produce relevant bills and vouchers before Assessing Officer. The ld. Counsel praye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
