9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 302X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the order sheet for the year 2020, we find on 06.01.2010 at the request of Ld counsel vide letter dated 6-1-2020 adjournment was sought. On 09.01.2020 also adjournment was requested. Subsequently, the case was posted on 18.02.2020 and none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment petition was filed and the case was adjourned to 30-04-2020. Due to Covid- 19 pandemic, the case was posted for hearing on 22.09.2020 but none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Finally on 01.012.2020, when the case was posted for hearing also, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Considering the facts on record, the appeal filed by the assessee is more than 10 years old and it looks like the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were issued. In compliance, the Ld. AR of the assessee appeared from time to time and furnished the details. The assessee was deriving income from salary and was engaged in the business of trading of export of Hosiery goods in the name and style of proprietary concerns M/s. Braun Textile Processors and M/s. Shirdi Overseas Imports and exports. Whereas M/s. Braun Textile Processors existed up to 31.10.2001 and later was converted to partnership. The assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80 HHC of the Act of Rs. 65,23,387/- in respect of proprietary concern M/s. Braun Textile Processors and the report u/s 80HHC(4) in form No.10CCAC is furnished along with the return of income. The A.O found that in the current financial year, the assessee has di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee was partly allowed.. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed an appeal with the Tribunal. 5. At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor adjournment petition was filed and was discussed in the above paragraphs. The contentions of the assessee as per the ground of appeal that, the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the gross profit of 1% on local sales and was wrongly added by the A.O. to the total income. Whereas, the Ld. DR submitted that assessee was provided ample opportunity to substantiate the claims even before the CIT(A) but no evidences were filed. 6.We heard the Ld. DR submissions and perused the material on record. The assessee has raised the sole ground of appeal that, the A.O has m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods sold locally were only waste and unusable material. 1.8 Now coming to the ground taken in appeal the only grievance of the appellant is, that the A.O should have added Rs. 71,836/- only (being 1% of cash sales of Rs. 71,83,595/-) in place of Rs. 94,530/- (being 1% of total sales of Rs. 94,53,020/-). In the ground of appeal filed with the form No. 35, the appellant agreed that the AO at best, could have added 1% GP on cash sales only. 1.9 The undersigned has considered all the relevant details. It is noted that it is a fact that on credit sales the prof it margin is higher than on the cash sales as it is the normal business practice. 1.10 Therefore on principle the AO action of rejecting the loss declared by the appellant, is co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
