9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 592X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as furnished by the assessee, have been reproduced at Page No. 2 of the assessment order. On scrutiny of the details furnished, the assessing officer noticed the following discrepancies: 1. During the month of May 2006 more number of pieces had been sold than were available with the assessee, resulting in a negative balance in the closing stock. 2. In the month of July 2006 again there was negative balance of closing stock. 3. In the month of February 2007 only purchase had been shown but no sales. 4. No sales shown in the month of March 2007 but the figures of the closing stock had been shown at NIL. 3. The assessing officer required the assessee to reconcile the aforementioned discrepancies. The assessee gave its explanation that separate bills had been prepared as per the requirement of Custom Department and submitted Stock Reconciliation Statement reproduced at Page No 4 of the assessment order. The assessing officer noticed that assessee had shown different figures of sales and purchases as compared to the figures submitted earlier. He noted that in the month of January' 2007 & February' 2007 purchases and sales in the in the month of January' 2007 had been shown in earl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unting to Rs. 12,85,280/- and made following two disallowances:- a) Amount paid to Shri Pramod Kumar Rs. 80,000/- as no reply had been received in regard to notices issued under section 133(6). b) Out of balance commission payment of Rs. 12,05,280/-, 20 % was disallowed, inter alia, observing that the assessee had failed to prove genuiness of this payment. 8. Thus, assessing officer had, inter alia, made following additions: 1. On account of low gross profit disclosed 12,55,073/- 2. Unexplained credit entries 1,15,00,000/- 3. Commission paid disallowed 3,21,056/- (80,000+,2,41,056). 9. Being aggrieved with the order of assessing officer, the assessee preferred appeal before ld. CIT(A) who, while partly allowing the appeal, deleted the aforementioned disallowances. Being aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the revenue has filed the appeal before us and has taken following grounds of appeal:- "1. The ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of he case in deleting the addition of Rs. 12,55,073/- made by the AO on account of low gross profit as un-explained income after rejecting the books of accounts under section 145(3) of the IT Act, 1961. 2. The L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e discrepancy pointed by AO on the basis of month-wise analysis of sales and purchases furnished before assessing officer as reproduced at page no. 3 of the assessment order vis-à-vis the details reproduced at page No. 4 of the assessment order. The details of both these charts are in terms of pieces. It was pointed out that whereas in the first chart purchases were shown in the month of January 2007, February 2007 and sales in January 2007 but no such details were shown in the second chart contained at page No. 4 of the assessment order. 14. Ld. Counsel submitted that there may be typographical mistake however, Ld. CIT(A) has observed that the difference had duly been reconciled in terms of pieces. Thus, it is not clear as to how the discrepancy pointed out by AO got reconciled. Under such circumstances, we consider it in the interest of justice that the matter be restored back to the file of the assessing officer for due verification of reconciliation statement. We directed accordingly. 15. In the result this ground is allowed for statistical purposes. 16. Apropos ground No. 2 before ld CIT(A) the assessee had stated that he had filed the confirmation before assessing o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a single cheque to all the persons, to most of the persons it had been made in March 2007. c) The assessee had made payment of salary of Rs. 6,58,580/- and, therefore, it was not clear as to what type of job and duties were performed for which commission was paid. 21. Before learned CIT(A) the assessee had submitted that the commission was paid for "services rendered in connection with sample collection, procurement, checking and packing and to make the shipment exportable." The payments were made on one time basis for the whole year for the job carried out throughout the year on the basis of the performance of the agent. TDS was also deducted and deposited in the government account for these payments. Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition observing that in most of the cases, the commission was 6.5 % to 7 % of the sale value. Thus, the addition was deleted taking in to consideration the nature of the payment vis-à-vis the needs of the business. As regards the commission paid to Shri Pramod Kumar, the assessee had furnished a copy of his return of income filed in Ward 19(2); his bank statement and PAN. Considering all these details he deleted the addition in respect of Shri Pramo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
