TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1001X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the income of the assessee u/s. 69 of the Act and hence, deleted the said addition - Decided in favour of assessee. Addition on account of alleged profit 220% on sale of stock of ₹ 75 lacs in domestic market - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- The goods purchased from M/s. Liberty Hosiery Mills Pvt. Ltd. in the month of August, 1998 were exported by the appellant in the same month, there was no stock left with the appellant for further sale after August, 1998. Moreover, the addition has been made on the basis of suspicion, conjectures and surmises, as no evidence has been brought on record by the AO of any domestic sale by the appellant. We find that the AO has only assumed that since the goods worth ₹ 75 lacs were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Report that these documents had already been considered at the time of original assessment. In the rejoinder, the AR of the assessee submitted that since all the documents filed along with the application under Rule 46A had been considered at the time of original assessment, the same was also considered by the Ld. CIT(A) after considering the Remand Report and the Rejoinder of the Ld. Counsel of the assessee and rightly allowed the additional evidences filed by the assessee. In our considered opinion, the Ld. CIT(A) has passed a well reasoned order which does not need any interference - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No. 6049/Del/2012 - - - Dated:- 4-9-2015 - SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEM ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Bagh, New Delhi but the same was returned un-served. After that it is noticed that Shri L. D.Gera, the Karta of the HUF has expired and his legal heirs Shn Naveen Garg, son residing in Dubai. After taking proper approval from CIT, Delhi- IX, New Delhi a notice u/s 143(2) alongwith a letter dated 11.09.2009 fixing the proceedings for 24.09.2009 was Issued on the address of assessee's son at Dubai(UAE). But again neither anybody attended She proceedings nor any adjournment was taken. 3.1 In this case, the return of income was filed on 31.12.1999 at NIL Income. After that the assessment u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 was completed on 27.03.2002 at an income of ₹ 1.75,25,024/-. Against the order of AO, the assessee filed an app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 27.3.2002 was accepted vide assessment order dated 30.12.2009 passed u/s. 254/144 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. Against the above assessment order the assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A) who deleted the addition made by the AO and allowed the appeal of the assessee vide his impugned order dated 27.9.2012. 5. Against the above order the Revenue is in appeal before us. 6. Ld. DR relied upon the order of the AO and reiterated the contentions raised by the Revenue in its grounds of appeal. 7. On the contrary, ld. Counsel of the assessee relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and filed the synopsis. 8. We have heard both the parties and perused the relevant records, orders of the revenue authorities and the synopsis filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he month of August, 1998 were exported by the appellant in the same month, there was no stock left with the appellant for further sale after August, 1998. Moreover, the addition has been made on the basis of suspicion, conjectures and surmises, as no evidence has been brought on record by the AO of any domestic sale by the appellant. We find that the AO has only assumed that since the goods worth ₹ 75 lacs were supplied by M/s. Liberty Hosiery Mills Pvt. Ltd. in the month of November, 1998 and not in the month of August, 1998, therefore, the asssessee has not only invested unaccounted money in purchase of goods worth ₹ 75 lacs in August, 1998, which were exported and the goods receive by them from the supplier in the month of No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 4 relating to ignoring the submission of the AO not to accept the additional evidence of the assessee under Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules is concerned, we find that the AO has made all possible efforts to locate the latest address of the assessee and also to the extent of locating the Dubai address of the legal heir of Sh. L. D. Gera and sending the notice u/s. 143(2) at that address, the fact remains that the notice sent to the Dubai address was not served on Sh. Naveen Gera and was returned back unserved with the remarks Incomplete Address . Under these circumstances, there is merit in the argument of the Ld. Counsel of the assessee that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the additional evidences before the AO. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
