9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 94X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14,60,834/- when the actual purchase price of goods on import was ₹ 16,20,796/-, so there is a difference of ₹ 1,69,962/-[₹ 16,20,796/- - ₹ 14,60,834]. We note that the N.P % shown by the assessee for export of fish dust after recast of export sale account is 21.5% which is reasonable and moreover considering the fact that the action of Ld. CIT(A) will result in N.P of 46%, which will be high and unreasonable. We direct the AO to accept the re-casted export sale account of assessee, wherein the assessee has shown N.P of 21.5% i.e. ₹ 6,70,968/- and accordingly compute the tax. Appeal of assessee is allowed. - I.T.A. No. 1847/Kol/2018 - - - Dated:- 14-8-2020 - Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, AM And Shri A. T. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ses. The concern M/s. Crystal Enterprises was engaged in importing of fruit juices and biscuits from Bangladesh which was later sold in the local markets. The AO also notes that with the sale proceeds which the assessee gets from the sale of imported fruit juice and biscuits, the assessee purchased fish dust and exported it to Bangladesh. The AO also noted that the assessee was the proprietor of another concern M/s. Crystal Express which was involved in supply of vehicles to customers for transportation. Thereafter, the AO notes that there was mismatch in sales turnover as reported in the audit report and income tax return. According to him, the assessee's sales turnover as reported in the audit report was to the tune of ₹ 1,20,47 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /-. The Ld. CIT(A) noted that the assessee inadvertently wrote the receipt from transportation activity under the head any other income and since the assessee had shown the receipt from the transportation business as ₹ 84,17,622/- the AO erred in making the addition and he directed the AO to delete the addition of ₹ 84,17,622/-. 3. Coming to the addition of ₹ 16,20,796/- the Ld. CIT(A) noted that the assessee himself has accepted the mistake which was on the part of his Accountant who have overlooked the transaction of purchase of ₹ 16,20,796/- and moreover, the Ld. CIT(A) noted that the entire import purchase has been made against the Letter of Credit (LC) wherein the payments have been made through proper bank ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... To net profit 6,70,968 31,21,380 31,21,380 4. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) has disallowed the expenditure claimed by the assessee on account of damages to the tune of ₹ 1,45,000/- and the transportation charges of ₹ 2,31,500/- for lack of documents to substantiate it and the Ld. CIT(A) only accepted the expenditure claimed on godown rent and the import duty and thereafter he re-casted the income of the assessee from undisclosed sources as under: 5. After recasting the income of the assessee from export (supra) the Ld. CIT(A) concluded that the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to ₹ 3,76,500/- then the net profit would come to ₹ 5,46,462/- (₹ 1,69,962 + ₹ 1,45,000 + ₹ 2,31,5001-) whereas the assessee has shown net profit of ₹ 6,70,968/- which is reasonable and, therefore, ought to have been accepted. We note that the assessee has imported fruit juice and biscuits from Bangladesh. The assessee has imported the purchases against LC and payments were made through banking channel which has been verified by the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee also produced the copy of entire import purchase documents along with the bills of entry and invoice to show that assessee has imported this goods for ₹ 16,20,796/-, therefore, based on these materials the Ld. CIT(A) has accepted the claim of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (i) godown rent and (2) import duty ₹ 1,56,021/- and ₹ 2,97,095/-, however, disallowed expenses claimed on account of (1) damages paid and (2) transport charges to the tune of ₹ 2,31,500/- and thereafter re-casted the income of the assessee in respect of the export and concluded that assessee s net profit from undisclosed income is ₹ 14,44,340/-. Against the action of Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. AR contended that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in recasting the income of the assessee. For that the Ld. AR pointed out that the import purchase amount shown by the Ld. CIT(A) in the recast is erroneous, since the ld. CIT(A) has taken wrongly the figure of ₹ 14,60,834/- when it is clear that the purchase amount as evident from books a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
