9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xplanation supported by appropriate documentation to rebut the findings of the AO. No justifiable basis to interfere with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) and the same is herby confirmed. Appeal of the assessee is dismissed. - ITA No. 256/CHD/2018 - - - Dated:- 24-1-2023 - SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For the Assessee : None For the Revenue : Shri Akashdeep, JCIT, Sr.DR ORDER This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A), Ludhiana dated 18.12.2017 pertaining to assessment year 2014-15 wherein the assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: 1. The Worthy Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I has erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the Appellant. 2. That the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... merits. 3. Taking into consideration the explanation submitted by the assessee, the order was recalled by the Coordinate Bench vide its order dated 21.06.2022 and matter was fixed for hearing on 21.07.2022. Thereafter, the matter was fixed up from time to time and again there was no compliance on the part of the assessee/AR. The Ld. AR subsequently withdrawn his Power of Attorney and thereafter, the notice was again served on the assessee through the Departmental Representative at the revised address given in Form 36. Again, there was no compliance and thereafter to give one final opportunity to the assessee, notice was again issued through RPAD and again there was no compliance on the part of the assessee. Therefore, taking into conside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as sales to the said sister concern on 13 occasions during the year under consideration, from which analysis it was found that on 8 occasions of sale, there was an average profit of 1.85% whereas on 5 occasions of sales, all in the months of March, 2014, the appellant firm incurred an average loss of 26.6%. On being confronted with this analysis of the AO, the appellant firm chose to justify be same by stating that orders are placed with delivery schedule of 2 to 3 months. The prices were stated to be high at the time of placement order in December, 2013, which experienced a drop of 30% when the imported material was sold by way of high seas sales in the month of March, 2014. No proof of the said contention was adduced before the AO except ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... given regarding the objections raised by the AO in the assessment proceedings except stating that the AO has made presumptions addition. It was again reiterated that the price of the traded items had declined during the month of March, 2014 which resulted in generation of losses. However, the appellant has not been able to controvert the findings of the AO that even in the month of March 2014, on some sales, there were profits. Besides, the appellant has not been able to bring on record the necessity of incurring losses by making sales to the proprietorship concern of one of the partners of the appellant firm by way of high sea sales. In the circumstances, it is held that the AO's estimation of the sale prices on 5 occasions in the mont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
