TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1711X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we are of the considered view that the inter branch account which remained un-reconciled since 1984 require huge working to ascertain the difference. Without going much into merit of the addition, we restore the entire matter to the file of AO for deciding afresh after calling necessary documents from the assessee. The assessee is also at liberty to furnish documentary evidence to substantiate its claim. The AO is to decide the entire issue afresh. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. Disallowance of expenditure - CIT(A) restricted disallowance to 15% - Held that:- In view of the findings recorded by CIT(A) for sustaining disallowance of 15% which has not been controverted by ld. AR by bringing any positive material ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned CIT(A) finding in para 7.5.1. i.e. All the entries which the appellant relies upon in order to assert that the amount of ₹ 1.27 crores is genuine, are made at the end of the F.Y. the aforesaid finding is factually incorrect as the origin of most of the entries relates to earlier years and fully accounted for in the relevant years, only the adjustment entries were made during the year to reflect the correct state of affairs, thus the same cannot be characterized as unaccounted receipts. II. Ad-hoc disallowance of expenses @ 15% of ₹ 12,89,606/- i.e. ₹ 3,22,401/- 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining the ad-hoc disallowance of , expenses to the extent of 15% of the total expenses out of ₹ 12,89 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bserved that the assessee had shown a gross loss on trading but had debited expenses to the tune of ₹ 17,99,513/- under various heads to the P L Account for the year under consideration. Expenses under various heads amounting in all to ₹ 12,89,606/- were disallowed by the A.O., who noted that the manufacturing activity had closed down and neither justification nor supporting evidence had been submitted to establish the genuineness of the expenses. 6. The contention of ld. AR before the lower authorities was that an amount of ₹ 51,50,000/- is on account of a book entry relating to the sale of the flat in Green Field Complex. In appeal, a copy of the sale agreement dated 31.03.2008 and the relevant ledger accounts have be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt was ₹ 18,26,316/- was held to be un-explained cash credit of the assessee and the addition to this extent was upheld. 8. Our attention was also brought to the fact that the amount of ₹ 8,83,391/- being payment for purpose of Oberoi flat was wrongly debited to drawings account. As supporting evidence for this the assessee has provided a copy of the Inter Branch Adjustment Account. It has been stated that this amount was wrongly debited to the drawings in the capital account of Target Marketing and was subsequently rectified. It is further submitted that exemption u/s 54 was subsequently claimed for the said flat. 9. Our attention was also invited to the amount of ₹ 35,56,602/, as being on account of difference i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pportunity was not given by the AO insofar as documents were required by the AO at the fag end of the proceedings. We found that assessee was prevented by sufficient case for producing evidence. We also found that some of the documents were submitted during the assessment proceedings. However, proper explanation could not be filed due to paucity of time as assessment was getting time barred. After going through the various documents placed on record, we are of the considered view that the inter branch account which remained un-reconciled since 1984 require huge working to ascertain the difference. Without going much into merit of the addition, we restore the entire matter to the file of AO for deciding afresh after calling necessary documen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
