TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 802X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d back to the AO for fresh adjudication Decided in favour of Revenue. Variation in the figures of sales as per the trading account and sales tax order Held that:- The AO has categorically recorded that the assessee did not furnish any explanation about the difference in the figures of turnover included in the annual accounts and month-wise details furnished during the course of assessment proceedings - CIT(A) did not call upon for any remand report from the AO thus, the matter is liable to be remitted back to the AO Decided partly in favour of Revenue. Expenses on ad-hoc basis Held that:- The AO observed that during the course of assessment proceedings that the assessee could not produce certain bills/vouchers of the amounts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The Ld. AR was fair enough to state that the Revenue s appeal against the Tribunal order in quantum proceedings for asstt. year 2003-04 has been accepted by the Hon ble High Court to the extent that such order has been set aside by restoring the matter to the lower authorities. In view of the fact that the quantum proceedings have come back to the lower authorities, the Ld. AR candidly accepted that the instant penalty proceedings be also restored. No objection was raised by the ld. DR in this regard. In view of the above stated facts, we set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the file of the AO for a fresh decision in consonance with and pursuant to the view to be taken by him in the quantum proceedings on the issues on whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tribunal order has been placed at Pages 4 to 12 of the Paper Book. The Ld. DR reiterated the submissions as were advanced before the Tribunal while arguing the appeals for such earlier years. It is seen that the Tribunal has taken a decision on this issue in assessee s favour after hearing the ld. DR. Admittedly the facts for the instant year are identical and no differentiation in the facts or legal position has been brought to our notice by the ld. DR. Respectfully following the precedent, we uphold the impugned order on this score. These grounds are not allowed. 8. The only other ground which survives for our consideration is ground no. 3 which is about the deletion of addition pursuant to variation in the figures of sales as per the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cordingly and direct him to decide this issue afresh in light of the details to be furnished by the assessee reconciling the two figures. 10. In the result, Revenue s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes. ASSTT. YEAR 2008-09 11. The Revenue has filed the appeal against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) on 14.6.2012. The assessee has also filed cross objections against the order of the ld. first appellate authority. It can be seen that the assessee filed cross objection twice, which have been numbered as CO No. 351/Del/12 and CO No. 84/Del/13. Admittedly, both the cross objections have similar grounds. It appears that the Cross objection has been inadvertently filed in duplicate. As such Cross Objection No. 84/Del/2013 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... levant material on record, it is found as an undisputed position that certain expenses claimed by the assessee were not backed by proper evidence. When we consider the total amount of expenses claimed as deduction by the assessee to the tune of ₹ 39.08 lacs and the amount disallowed on ad hoc basis ₹ 2.60 lacs, we find that such estimate of disallowance as reasonable. We therefore, uphold the impugned order on this score. 15. In the result, the appeal by the Revenue and the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are dismissed. ASSTT. YEAR 2009-10 16. The only issue raised by the Revenue in its appeal is against the addition on account of excise duty shown as receivable from the Government which was not credited to the P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
