9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 239X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IT(DR) ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 17/11/2014 passed by CIT (A)-1 New Delhi for Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The grounds of appeal are as under:- 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A) is arbitrary, against law and facts on record. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has erred in confirming addition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tice u/s 142(1) was issued on 11/4/2013 in response to which a return declaring income of Rs. 3,37,29,450/- was filed on 31/5/2013. Notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 30/10/2013. Notices u/s 142 (1) along with questionnaire was issued on 26/4/2013 and 17/2/2014. The assessee furnished the relevant records and filed reply dated 20/2/2014. The Assessing Officer assessed income at Rs. 4,83,44,860/- afte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The amount of stock in the books of accounts is more by Rs. 1,46,15,410/-. As such the company has shown more profit in the books of account and as such this issue needs no adverse inference. The Ld. AR further submitted that the books were not at all rejected by the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer has not taken into account, the Stock lying outside factory premises and cold storages ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oks of accounts at any point of time were not rejected by the Assessing Officer. There was no denial by the Assessing Officer that stock was lying outside factory premises and cold storages. The Assessing Officer has not pointed out any defect in the reconciled stock. The CIT(A) has also not taken the cognizance of proper GP rate applied by the CIT(A). Therefore, the Assessing Officer as well as t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
