9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on for Rs.18000.00 in the name of Sh. Vipin Kumar U/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as per page No.3 of the appellate order. 2. That the learned assessing officer as well as learned appellate authority have erred to make an addition of Rs.125000.00 in the books of the M/s. Vivek enterprises in account of advance Sh. K.K. Gupta (H.U.F.) u/s 68 of the Act, as per page No.3 of the appellate order. 3. That the learned appellate authority has erred to consider the gross profit rate @ 7.59% in place of @ 5.59% as per appellate order page No.8 in the unit of M/s. S.G. Enterprises." 2. The first issue for consideration relates to confirming the addition of Rs.18,000/- in the name of Shri Vipin Kumar. During the course of assessment proceedings ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13 persons but neither confirmation was filed nor identity or creditworthiness of Shri Vipin Kumar was proved before us. In the absence of any confirmation and proof of identity and creditworthiness of Shri Vipin Kumar, in our considered opinion the learned CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition of Rs.18,000/-. Accordingly we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned CIT(A). 6. Next issue for consideration relates to addition of Rs.1,25,000/-. During the course of assessment proceedings from tax audit report the Assessing Officer found that Rs.1,25,000/- was received from Shri K.K. Gupta and was repaid during the year. The assessee vide reply dated 19.12.2005 filed copy of cheque dated 24.08.2002 for Rs.1,25,00 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee vide letter dated 19.12.2005 filed before the AO stated that cheque dated 24.08.2002 was issued by Shri K.K. Gupta in the name of Vivek Enterprises. However, subsequently the assessee stated that the amount was received from Shri Kapil Gupta S/o Shri K.K. Gupta. Shri Kapil Gupta explained the source of deposit as gift but no documentary evidence was filed by the assessee. From these facts it is evident that the assessee has been shifting the stand. The assessee could not file any evidence to prove the identity, creditworthiness of the credit and genuineness of the transaction. In the absence of documentary evidence the learned CIT(A) in our considered opinion was justified in uphold the addition of Rs.1,25,000/-. 10. Last issue for co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f M/s. Simran Traders, Meerut and 2.6% in the case of M/s. Malik Trading Co., Ghaziabad. The learned CIT(A) considered the assessee's submissions and remand report of the AO. Before the AO in the remand proceedings the assessee was unable to furnish bills and vouchers. Therefore, the learned CIT(A) upheld the estimation of gross profit by the Assessing Officer. However, he was of the opinion that estimation of gross profit was excessive. The learned CIT(A) further noted that M/s. Vivek Enterprises had supplied goods directly to M/s. C.D.B.L., a distillery. However, M/s. S.G. Enterprises had sold its items to local dealers as well as mediators also. Further, the plea of the assessee that national market rates applicable to Vivek Enterprises, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
