TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 435X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rate to the sale of the present year, the addition on this account comes to ₹ 1,97,134/-. The ld.Sr.DR could not controvert the finding by placing any contrary material on record. Moreover, the Assessing Officer has not given any basis for estimating the profit on lump sum basis. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere into the finding of the ld.CIT(A), same is hereby upheld. - Decided against revenue. Disallowance of commission expenses - CIT(A) allowed the claim - Held that:-The A. O. had made an addition of ₹ 2,08,802/- as the appellant could not furnish complete name and address of the persons to whom above commission was paid. It has been submitted by the appellant that the TDS has been made u/s. 194H and copies of Form 60A was also filed by him before the A. O. He has given complete details mentioning the Address, PAN and the amount of commission paid to 3 persons. The A. O. in his remand report has not given any comments on the information submitted by the appellant. Since, the appellant has given necessary details for verification of commission expenses such as name and address of the person, PAN, confirmation of the person as well as Form 16A whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment and the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) was framed vide order dated 05/02/2008, thereby the Assessing Officer (AO in short) made addition on account of fall in GP amounting to ₹ 50 lacs and addition made on account of disallowance of commission expenses amounting to ₹ 2,08,802/-. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), who after considering the submissions of the assessee restricted the addition made on account of fall in GP to ₹ 14,78,543/- as against the addition of ₹ 50 lacs made by the AO and deleted the addition of ₹ 2,08,802/- made on account of disallowance of commission expenses. 4. First ground is against in restricting the addition made to the extent of ₹ 14,78,543/-. The ld.Sr.DR supported the order of the AO and submitted that the ld.CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition. He submitted that the AO has pointed out that there was a steep fall in GP from 10.78% in the preceding year to 3.62% in the year under consideration. 5. We have heard the ld.Sr.DR, perused the material available on record and gone throug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, and therefore, yielded low G, P. (viii) The G. P, rate was higher in A. Y. 2005-06 (13.73%) on account of high G. P. rate in a single transaction. (ix) In respect of insulated scrap, if FIFO method is applied the G. P. rate would be high. However, if LOT to LOT method is applied, as the appellant has sold the scrap on lot basis in almost all transactions, there would be no difference in GP. Apart from the above points, the appellant has made general submissions regarding acceptance of G, P. rate shown by him. The general submissions have been reproduced in the earlier part of this order, the appellant has also submitted charts showing working of G. P. rate by FIFO method and LOT to LOT method for A. Y, 2005-06 and the present A. Y. An examination of the various items of sale made by the appellant during the year, it is observed that the following main items have been sold by him during the year. Sl.No. Items A.Y. 2006-07 A.Y. 2005-06 Quantity Sale value(Rs.) Quantity Sale value(Rs.) 1. Cables and wire( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the current year is insulated scrap. The submission of the appellant that the G, P. rate should be taken on LOT to LOT basis as it gives a clear picture of the profit margin of the appellant has some force. However, the comparison of the G. P. rate of two years cannot be made on LOT to LOT basis as it will not give proper result. There is a force in the appellant's submission that the quality of scrap varies from year to year and it cannot be strictly compared with the earlier years and on account of huge increase in turnover, the G, P. rate cannot be as high as in the previous year. It was also pointed out by the appellant that there was high profit margin in one transaction. As per the FIFO method, the G. P. rate in respect of insulated scrap for A. Y. 2005-06 was 7.65% whereas for A. Y. 2006-07, it was 1.11%, However, by LOT to LOT method, the G. P. rate for last year was 3.26% as against 1.66% for the present year. After considering all the facts, and circumstances, it would meet the ends of justice if G, P. rate for the current year is taken @ 5%. The appellant has already shown a G. P. rate of 1.66%. Accordingly, the addition @ 3.34% of the G. P. which works out to S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of commission paid to 3 persons. The A. O. in his remand report has not given any comments on the information submitted by the appellant. Since, the appellant has given necessary details for verification of commission expenses such as name and address of the person, PAN, confirmation of the person as well as Form 16A which was issued to the person to whom the commission was paid, the A. O. was not justified in disallowing the commission. The addition made is accordingly deleted. 7.1. The above finding on fact is not controverted by the Revenue by placing any material on record. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the ld.CIT(A), same is hereby upheld. Thus, this ground Revenue s appeal is rejected. 8. Ground No.3 is against in admitting the additional evidences in violation of Rule 46A. The ld.Sr.DR submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has admitted the additional evidences. 8.1. We have heard the ld.Sr.DR. However, ld.Sr.DR could not point out what were the additional evidences which were admitted by the ld.CIT(A). Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the ld.CIT(A). Thus, this ground of Revenue s appeal is rejected. 9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
