9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by holding that the Assessing Officer was justified in treating the income at Rs. 37,12,424/- as suppression of sales as per Para 1 of the order of CIT(A)-1. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A)-1 has erred in not considering and ignoring the submissions and facts as filed before the CIT(A)-1 as well as before the Assessing Officer. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A)-1 has also erred in holding that no explanation was given regarding the objections raised by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings. 5. That all the information and explanation already filed before the Assessing Officer and also before the CIT(A)-1 and the same are not considered properly. 6. That the Appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he part of the assessee showing its lack of interest in prosecuting the present appeal, it was decided that no useful purpose would be served in adjourning the matter any further and basis the material available on record and after hearing the Ld. DR, the matter is hereby decided. 4. During the course of hearing, Ld. DR taken me through the order of the AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A) and it was submitted that the matter has been duly examined by the Ld. CIT(A) and in absence of any explanation submitted by the assessee even during the appellate proceedings, the suppression of sales to sister concern determined by the AO has been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). In this regard, our reference was drawn to the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) at para 1 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The AO noted in the impugned assessment order that the appellant firm was trying to compare the prices of different materials of steel to justify the contention of drop in prices from December, 2013 to March, 2014. The AO, however, noted that during the said period some high seas sale were made to the sister concern at a huge loss of around 26.6%, whereas on sales made on 16/03/2014, there was a profit of 4.6%. In view of this meticulous finding by the AO, the contention of the appellant was rejected. Applying the ratio of CIT Vs. Durga Prasad More [82 ITR 540] & Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT [214 ITR 801], wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the proposition of law that in appreciating documents, evidences and evidence on record, the Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt addition to the returned income is, thus, upheld." 5. Having gone through the material available on record and after hearing the Ld. DR, I find that the matter has been duly examined by the lower authorities and in view of lack of appropriate explanation submitted by the assessee justifying the incurrence of loss of 26.6% in the month of March on sales to its sister concern as against average profit of 1.85% in earlier period, the AO was justified in estimating the average profit at 1.48% taking into consideration the profit declared in the earlier period and determining the suppressed sales to sister concern which has been brought to tax. Even during the appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee didn't furnish any e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
