9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 129X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the assessee has declared better gross profit rate of 1.52% as compared to average of past three years GP rate of 1.44% and even where the books of accounts are rejected, there is no basis for making the addition in the hands of the assessee. Therefore, leaving the question of rejection of books of accounts open as the same has become more academic in nature, the addition so made is directed to be deleted. Depreciation and other expenses relating to tanker on perusal of explanation and documentation - HELD THAT:- We find that there is no merit in disallowance of the said expenses and the same are directed to be deleted. - ITA. No. 834/JP/2018 (Assessment Years : 2011-12) - - - Dated:- 30-4-2021 - SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM AND ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st on TATA Finance 32,988/- Total 2,23,840/- The disallowance so made is contrary to the provisions of law and facts of the case. Hence, the same kindly be deleted in full. 4. The Id. CIT(A) further erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming charging interest u/s 234B, 234C 234D of the Act. The appellant totally denies its liability of charging of any such interest. The interest so charged, being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, kindly be deleted in full. 2. Ground no. 1 was not pressed during the course of hearing hence, the same is dismissed as not pressed. 3. In ground No. 2, the assessee has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of accounts are rejected, the Assessing Officer is required to make a fair estimation of assessee s income. Regarding the comparison of GP declared by the assessee with other parties namely Raj Filling Station and Seth Filing station, it was submitted that these cases are not comparable due to difference in the storage capacity of these filing station as both are having 100KL storage capacity wherein the assessee is having only 40 KL storage capacity. It was submitted that the Assessing Officer never confronted the assessee the relevant details of such cases during the course of assessment proceedings, therefore, in absence of the same, the third party data cannot be used against the assessee. It was further submitted that during the year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owed. The AO has raised no objection and rather admitted that the payment has been made during the year itself. Thus, all the other expenses i.e. insurance of ₹ 62,826/- and interest of ₹ 32,988/- deserved to be allowed. Regarding depreciation of ₹ 1,28,031/-, it was submitted that the lower authorities did not consider the matter judiciously in as much as a bare perusal of VAT invoice dated 10.12.2010 clearly shows that the assessee had purchased complete Tanker along with body and chasis, which were duly delivered along with insurance to him on 10.12.2010. Thereafter, the assessee purchased complete accessories on 17.12.2010 and 05.01.2011 as per Invoice No. 82 and 099. Finally, cabin was also purchased and installed on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the lack of proper explanation for lower GP as compared to peer traders in the same area, non maintenance of proper stock details and those related to claim of shortage, expenses etc. The addition of ₹ 3,14,300/- is upheld. The ground of appeal no. 1 is dismissed. As regards ground no. 2, the appellant could not produce the claim of expenses related to the tanker before the AO and only relied on oral submission despite repeated query in this regard. The appellant has not been able to come up with any further reasoning to counter the findings of the AO in the course of the appellate proceedings. Under the circumstances, I see no reason to disagree with the findings of the AO of disallowing the claim of expenses including d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
