TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 649X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evidences by Ld. CIT (A) it was found that the AO has made the addition without applying mind or without understanding accounting system followed by assessee consistently - in favour of assessee. Addition on account of bogus unsecured creditors - Held that:- CIT (A) has ascertained the factual aspects that due to clerical error, postings were made in the wrong name. However, they were rectified. Only thereafter the additions were deleted by Ld. CIT (A) - in favour of assessee. Addition on account of winning from Lottery - Held that:- As AO himself had made enquiry u/s 133(6)from ITC Ltd. regarding this payment and the company confirmed payment of performance incentive to the assessee as well as to other parties of Rajasthan on the basis of turnover achieved by them. Therefore, CIT (A) found that there is no winning from lottery or from puzzle as this is a regular income which has already been accounted for by the assessee in its accounts book - in favour of assessee. Addition on account of income of M/s. Aman Enterprises - Held that:- This addition has been made by A.O. without properly verifying the facts as per ledger account of appellant, total interest of Rs. 37,89,273 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that instead of one party, account of another party has been debited, however total sale and purchase are correctly recorded and this has no effect on profit declared by appellant. 3.5 The difference between purchases as per ledger and trading account were also explained by appellant. From the perusal of these details it is found that in the case of Nestle account, opening stock of Rs. 21,69,093 has been also considered as purchases of the year by A.O. due to this there is difference between trading account and ledger. Similarly the difference in sale of Nestle account is due to sale of Rs. 12,16,947 which is on account of D D sale (Damage Destroyed goods). 3.6 Similarly the difference in cadbury account is of Rs. 20,000 which is also on account of D D sales. In domes purchases account the difference between trading account and ledger account is of Rs. 12,882 which is due to purchase expenses duly recorded by appellant. The difference between ledger account appellant and information received from company is due to VAT. The only difference which is not satisfactorily explained is of Rs. 997 in Lunger Biri a/c. 4. After considering the submissions and taking into consider ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant which has not been considered by A.O. therefore addition of Rs. 50,208 is not justified and the same is directed to be deleted. Ground no. 3 is thus allowed. Findings of Ld. CIT (A) remained uncontroverted as Ld. D/R simply placed reliance on the order of Assessing Officer. Findings of Ld. CIT (A) are findings of fact. After ascertaining the factual aspects that interest from both the parties i.e. from Indusind Bank and ITC Ltd. have already been shown. Therefore, we see no reason to interfere with the findings of Ld. CIT (A). 10. Next ground is against deleting the addition of Rs. 22,88,921/- on account of commission received from IDEA Telecommunication Ltd. and IDEA Cellular. 11. The Assessing Officer made addition by observing that as per Form 16A issued by Indusind Bank and Idea Cellular Ltd., the assessee received commission/brokerage. However, the same is not reflected in the books of account. Therefore, he made the impugned addition in the hands of the assessee. Detailed submissions were filed before Ld. CIT (A). It was explained that assessee has shown the income as the income has been taken by the assessee as per bills issued by IDEA Telecommunication Ltd. and I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed before Ld. CIT (A) which are incorporated at pages 8 9 of his order. It was explained that due to clerical mistake, the entries were wrongly credited to the account of M/s. SFG Agencies, Bhilwara and M/s. Pawan Specialist, Jaipur, whereas these entries relates to Laxman General Store, Bhilwara, Modern Const., Bhilwara, Shanker General Store, Bhilwara and Rakesh Store, Bhilwara. These mistakes were also pointed out during the assessment proceedings. However, Assessing Officer did not verify the same. Supporting evidences were also filed before Ld. CIT (A). 15. After considering the submissions and perusing the material on record, the Ld. CIT (A) found that this addition is also wrongly made by Assessing Officer. Finding of Ld. CIT (A) has been recorded in para 7.3 at page 9 are as under:- 7.3 It was intimated by appellant to the A.O. during the course of assessment proceedings that the amount received from four parties i.e. Laxman General Store, Bhilwara Modern Const. Bhilwara, Shanker General Store, Bhilwara And Rakesh Store Bhilwara were wrongly credited to M/s SFG agencies. If A.O. was not satisfied with this reply of appellant, he should have made further enquiry from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under section 194B (winning from lottery puzzle @ 30%) whereas the assessee has received incentive only. The distributor based on company s instructions provides such products free in sale bill or provides to retailers as per scheme as per their performance as evident from details and sales bills filed before Ld. CIT (A). It was further explained that for A.Y. 2007-08 the Assessing Officer has himself accepted these facts and has considered it as regular income. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) on 25.3.2009, copy of the same was also filed. 18.1. After considering the submissions and perusing the material on record, the Ld. CIT (A) found that Assessing Officer was not justified in making the addition. The Ld. CIT (A) noted that Assessing Officer himself had made enquiry under section 133(6) from ITC Ltd. regarding this payment and the company vide its letter dated 9.6.2010 confirmed payment of performance incentive to the assessee as well as to other parties of Rajasthan on the basis of turnover achieved by them. Therefore, the Ld. CIT (A) found that there is no winning from lottery or from puzzle as this is a regular income which has already been accounted fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o M/s. Aman Enterprises is not reflected in the interest account or in the Profit Loss account, therefore, Assessing Officer made an adverse inference that amount of Rs. 11,80,780/- has been paid out of books of account. Therefore, he made an addition of the same under section 69C of the Act. Detailed submissions were filed before Ld. CIT (A) which has been recorded at pages 14 15. It was explained that Assessing Officer has not verified the facts correctly. There is no unexplained investment or payment by assessee as all the payments have been made from books of account only. The Ld. CIT (A) examined the facts and found that total interest of Rs. 37,89,273/- has been paid by assessee which includes a sum of Rs. 11,80,780/- paid to M/s. Aman Enterprises. Therefore, Ld. CIT (A) noted that assessee has not made payment of interest out of books of account. Accordingly addition made by Assessing Officer was deleted. 21. After considering the orders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT (A) on which reliance has been placed by respective parties, we find no infirmity in the finding of Ld. CIT (A). Findings of Ld. CIT (A) have been recorded in para 12.3 at page 15 of his order are a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
