Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (7) TMI 292 - AT - Income TaxAddition on account of under valuation of closing stock - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- The assessee had valued the closing stock consistently on the sale method as followed during the year i.e. 50% fresh material and 50% inferior material. In past, similar additions were made by the Assessing Officer, which has been deleted by the Coordinate Bench in A.Y. 2008-09 and 2005-06. The assessee has maintained quantitative details and no specific defects has been pointed out by the ld Assessing Officer. The ld. DR has also not controverted the finding given by the ld CIT(A). Being identical issue decided by the Coordinate Bench in preceding year, we have no reason to intervene in the order of ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we uphold the order of the ld. CIT(A). - Decided against revenue. Disallowance of commission and dalali expenses - CIT(A) deleted part addition - Held that:- The assessee has filed complete name, address, PAN and TDS deducted on the commission and also explained the nature of service rendered by them. It also filed copy of account of the old commission old agent and new commission agent before the Assessing Officer. The assessee made payment through account payee cheque and recipients had been disclosed these commissions in their respective returns. The ld AR explained the discrepancy mentioned by the ld. Assessing Officer on service rendered and commission payment to 25 parties and particular invoice number mentioned in assessment order in case of commission paid to Uma Agarwal. The AR argued that during the year sale through the commission agent has increased and direct sale has been decreased. The Ld. Assessing Officer had not provided the facts and figure of comparable case i.e. Agarwal Marble Pvt. Ltd. to the assessee. The case laws relied by the assessee squarely applicable in the case of the appellant. However, the assessee could not furnish the confirmation in case of commission payment of ₹ 95,707/- to Mahesh Kumar and ₹ 1,66,133/- paid to Naresh Bhawani before the lower authorities as well as before us. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition of ₹ 1 lac on estimated basis when commission payments are specified amount, the CIT(A) should have confirmed the whole commission payment of ₹ 2,61,840/-. Therefore, in absence of proper evidence with the assessee for claiming the expenditure as incurred wholly and exclusively for the business purposes, we confirm the addition of ₹ 2,61,840/-. - Decided against assessee.
|