Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (6) TMI 598 - AT - Income TaxAddition on account of premium of Kerosene Oil - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- CIT(A) has carefully found that there is substance in the arguments of the Ld. Counsel that on the basis of discrepancies / defects pointed out by the AO on examination of the seized material it was not possible to draw the inference that the assessee had received premium on the account of sale of kerosene oil. We find that CIT(A) was agreed with the Counsel that the AO was not justified to rely on the letter of complaint addressed to the Asstt. Commissioner (Foods), once no action was taken by the AC (Foods) on the basis of that letter the assessee continued to have the license to distribute the kerosene oil. Similarly discrepancies such as non filing of challans, difference in position of stock as per two registeres or some difference in the quantity of sales as per different registered found at the time of search could not be used as the basis to infer that the assessee was receiving premium by indulging into black marketing of kerosene oil. Ld. CIT(A) further observed that there was also substance in the counsel's argument that the purchases/ sales / gross profit relating to kerosene oil business as shown in the regular books of accounts stood undisturbed by the AO. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that AO has not pointed out any defect in the trading account pertaining to the oil business nor provisions of section 145 of I.T. Act were applied in assessee's case. Thus, without rejection of the trading account of the assessee, any addition on account of premium from the sale of the same oil which already stood reflected in the trading account was not legally justified. CIT(A) has rightly held that the evidence found in the form of loose papers / diary form the premises of M/s Kumar Oils and M/s Shyam lal Bala Prasad could not be utilized as a valid evidence against the assessee once the assessment in the case of M/s Kumar Oil was made on the returned income NIL. CIT(A) has rightly held that as per the provisions of section 158BC of the Act the evidence recovered from the premises of M/s Kumar Oils and M/s Shyam Lal Bala Prasad could not be made the basis for making addition of undisclosed income in the hands of the assessee - Decided against revenue. Addition on account of extra premium - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case as explained above, and also in view of the well reasoned Order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute, we find no infirmity in the impugned Order on this issue and hence, we uphold the same by dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue - Decided against revenue.
|