TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 846X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n was not comparable with the profit rate declared for subsequent years which had been accepted by the ITAT. In that view of the matter we are of the view that the ld. CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition made by the AO. As regards, to the another addition of ₹ 3,10,000/- in respect of difference between the amount shown in the cash receipts issued by the assessee to M/s Krishna Store and the amount entered in assessee’s cash book it appears that the ld. CIT(A) verified from the books of accounts and the bank statement of the assessee that the transactions entered in the primary books of accounts i.e. cash book and in the bank statement was the same but those were wrongly mentioned in the receipts book. The ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition of ₹ 3,10,000/- after proper verification on the basis of verification report of ST-35 forms issued by M/s Krishna Stores giving details of the bill numbers and the amounts of respective bills which confirmed that the correct amounts involved in the two transactions were entered in the primary books of accounts i.e. cash book & ledger. We, therefore, do not see any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue. - Decided ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ional High Court we proceeded to dispose of these appeals. ITA No. 1284/Del/1999 relates to the penalty while the appeal in ITA No. 37/Del/2004 relates to the quantum addition. In this appeal following grounds have been raised: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 4,99,169/- in respect of commission income earned by the assessee and providing accommodation entries, merely relying in the decision of ITAT for the A.Ys. 1990-91 and 1991-92. The decision for the A.Y. 1990- 91 and A.Y. 1991-92 is itself erroneous as ITAT had not decided the case for A.Y. 1989-90 but merely set aside and for which the department is filing appeal u/s 254(2). 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 3,10,000/- in respect of difference between the amount shown in the cash receipts issued by the assessee to M/s Krishna Store and the amount entered in assessee s cash book. 3. Any other ground that the appellant would raise during the course of the appeal for amending, deleting, modifying or adding and oth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n his bank account in lieu of which cheques had been issued to the suppliers. The AO invoked the provision of section 145 of the Act and rejected the books of accounts, he estimated the income @ 1.25% on the deposit of ₹ 3,99,97,585/- which was worked out of ₹ 4,99,969/-. The AO also noted that the cash receipts seized and inventories at Annexure-A-5 page 64 indicated receipts of ₹ 4,00,000/- on 10.11.1988 whereas in the cash book and ledger only ₹ 40,000/- had been shown as receipts from M/s Krishna Stores and that the another cash receipts at page no. 168 indicated receipts of ₹ 5,00,000/- on 16.11.1988 as against ₹ 5,50,000/-. The AO held that if the difference in the two receipts were adjusted the net difference of ₹ 3,10,000/- (Rs. 3,60,000/- - ₹ 50,000/-) remained for which the assessee was unable to offer any explanation, the said amount was added to the income of the assessee. 4. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) and submitted that in the succeeding assessment years similar additions were made by the AO which had been deleted by the than CIT(A) vide order dated 03.03.1994 and subsequently by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6 ITR 64 (HP) NTPC Vs CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC) 6. Now the Department is in appeal. The ld. DR reiterated the observations made by the AO and strongly supported the assessment order. 7. In his rival submissions the ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and further submitted that the turnover of the assessee has been accepted by the AO and in the subsequent year similar type of addition made by the AO was deleted by the ld. CIT(A) and later on, the ITAT confirmed the action of the ld. CIT(A) while deciding the appeal the department vide order dated 12.10.2001 and 14.09.2001 for the assessment years 1990-91 and 1991-92 respectively (copies of the said orders were furnished which are placed at page nos. 31-32 and 41-42 respectively of the assessee s paper book). It was further submitted that the AO did not point out any specific effect in the books of accounts maintained by the assessee and arbitrarily applied the net profit rate of 1.25% and that the ld. CIT(A) was fully justified in deleting the addition made by the AO. 8. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
