9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 952X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment stage, the assessee at the first appellate proceedings has filed reconciliation of the cash flow statement which has been reproduced by the Ld. CIT(A) - Rather than examining the correctness of reconciliation statement filed by the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of AO and that too without even calling for a remand report from the AO. From the records, it is evident that the assessee's aforesaid submission and reconciliation is before the authorities below - We set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter back to the file of AO. with a direction to verify the reconciliation statement/summary and submissions made by the assessee in this respect and in the event it is found to be correct afte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in reply, the A/R of the assessee explained that in the audited account, the sale was at net sale after adjustment of VAT. So, the A/R of the assessee was asked by AO to produce the details of VAT. According to AO, on perusal of the detail, it was seen that as per cash flow statement submitted, the cash received from the debtors during the financial year 2015-16 (assessment year 2016-17) was shown at ₹ 69,92,779/-. But AO noted that as per details submitted, the total credit sale was at ₹ 57,02,455/- and opening balance of sundry debtors was nil and closing balance at ₹ 4,67,017/-. Thus according to AO, there is the difference in amount of ₹ 17,57,341/-. Therefore, the AO asked the Ld. A.R to explain as to why the di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hen the AO asked the cash flow statement, the assessee had filed the cash flow statement before the AO but it had some mistakes. In this context it was pointed out by the Ld. A.R that the accounts are correct i.e. cash books, ledger etc. are correct. However, due to wrong classification of certain entries by the accountant, result given by cash flow statement got wrong. According to the Ld. AR some of the sales which has been shown in the cash sales has been mistakenly shown under head credit sales. Likewise, some of the accounts of the debtors has been classified as sundry creditors. Realizing this mistake, the assessee corrected the cash flow statement earlier filed before the AO and filed the reconciliation summary during the appellate p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sales 2,52,99,009.87 Outstanding Debtors as at 31.03.16 (as per assessment order) 4,67,017.00 Received from Debtors (Wrongly included in Sundry Creditors) 2,12,464.61 Total sales including VAT as per Sales Statement 3,29,71,270.48 Thus the total receipts from the sundry debtors is to the tune of ₹ 69,92,779.00 and total cash sales was to the tune of ₹ 2,52,99,009.87 and the outstanding debtors as on 31.03.2016 (as per assessment order) is at ₹ 4,67,017.00. And the amount received from Debtors (wrongly included in sundry creditors) was at ₹ 2,12,464.61 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the entries made by the accountant while entering the same certain mix-up happened like sale in cash were wrongly classified under the credit sales etc. Realizing this mistake which crept in to the cash flow statement filed at the assessment stage, the assessee at the first appellate proceedings has filed reconciliation of the cash flow statement which has been reproduced by the Ld. CIT(A) at page 7 of his order. Rather than examining the correctness of reconciliation statement filed by the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of AO and that too without even calling for a remand report from the AO. From the records, it is evident that the assessee's aforesaid submission and reconciliation is before the authorities ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
