TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 639X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... P. - Held that:- After going through the statement of facts filed along with appeal memo and in the absence of the assessee having failed to produce the original purchase and sale bills and also purchase and sale register, the CIT(A) up held the addition of ₹ 6,46,097/-. The assessee has failed to controvert finding of the CIT(A) and in the absence of the same and the assessee having failed to file original purchase and sale bills before the authorities below, we are inconformity with the order of the CIT(A) in this regard and the ground of appeal no. 4 raised by the assessee is dismissed. Addition made under section 41(1) - difference in Sundry creditors liability - Held that:- The assessee before us has failed to furnish any reconciliation statement and in the absence of the same we find no merit in the ground of appeal - Decided against assessee. Disallowance to the extent of 20% out of conveyance, delivery, labour, salaries shop expenses and staff welfare - Held that:- As before the CIT(A) assessee failed to file any details and hence the addition made by the AO was confirmed. Even before us despite an opportunity being granted, the assessee has failed to appear and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as per the provisions under the Act. so your goodselves is requested to allow the same. 4. The Ld. C.LT. (A) erred in dismissing the ground No.2 holding the addition of ₹ 6,46,097/- on account of short fall in G.P. without considering the submission that your appellant had changed from retail sale to whole sale business during the said previous year therefore the G.P. (Gross Profit) is not comparable with the last year's ratio. So your goodselves is requested to delete the said addition. 5. The Ld. C.LT. (A) erred in dismissing the ground No.3 in holding the addition of ₹ 17,57,134/- under section 41(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on account to prove the genuineness of the liability without considering the submission that your appellant had submitted detail of creditors with full name and their addresses and the Ld. Assessing Officer / the Ld. C.I.T. (A) did not grant any opportunity to your appellant to reconcile the balances before making such addition your goodselves is requested to delete the said addition. 6. The Ld. C.I.T. (A) erred in dismissing the ground No.4 in holding the addition of ₹ 3,42,037/- being 20% of several expenses namely con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 97/-. The AO noted that as against G.P. rate of 14% declared in the preceding year, for the year under consideration the assessee had declared G.P. rage of 6%. The assessee was specifically asked to explain the fall in G.P. rate. In reply the assessee submitted that for the year under consideration, he was engaged in wholesale business wherein his turnover had increased. Till last year the assessee was engaged in retail business. The AO noted that the submission of the assessee cannot be accepted for the following reasons:- (i) The partywise details of sales submitted during the course of assessment proceedings shows 40 entries wherein at Sr. No. 1 to 39 the names of the party and amounts have been given. The minimum and maximum amount of sale in case of single party is shown as ₹ 5650/- and ₹ 9745270/-. At Sr. No. 40 the following details are given. Sr. No. Name of the party Amount (Rs.) 40 Sundry parties/cash sales 80,76,223 From the above narration, it can be understood that the amount of ₹ 80,76,223/- pertains to re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unserved and in some cases confirmation was given by the such party did not match with the liability declared by the assessee. The assessee was asked to reconcile the said differences. However, the assessee failed to appear before the AO on the appointed dates of hearing and consequently where the assessee had failed to explain and prove the said liability, addition of ₹ 17,57,134/- was made under section 41(1) of the Act. The said addition was up held by the CIT(A) as though the issue was raised before the CIT(A), but the assessee fail to file reconciliation statement. The relevant finding of the CIT(A) are vide para 5.1 which read as under:- I have carefully gone through the assessment order, the submissions made on behalf of the appellant in the statement of facts and the facts of the case. At the outset it may be mentioned that in this case the appellant chose not to represent his case before the AO. Further, the AO had issued notices under section 133(6) which in some cases the notices were returned unserved as the parties were not found on the addresses given by the appellant and in some cases the confirmation given by those parties did not match with the liabilit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
