TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1869X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on estimated basis out of "commission income" - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- The commission income is verifiable from the TDS certificate and, therefore, estimate of such income at lumsum amount is not required and, therefore, the addition of ₹ 1,33,679/- is hereby deleted. - Decided against revenue. Addition u/s 68 - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- In the remand proceedings, the assessee has substantiated that this amount represents the loan taken from ICICI Bank Ltd for the purpose of vehicle. There is no unexplained credit in the account of the assessee. Ld. First Appellate Authority has deleted the addition after appreciating the remand report and the evidences produced by the assessee. Therefore, we do n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gwith notice u/s 142(1) which were remained un-complied with. Therefore, he proceeded to pass an ex-parte assessment u/s 144 of the Income-tax Act. On perusal of the details, it revealed to the Assessing Officer that there is a fall of about 19.58% in the GP in comparison to preceding year. The assessee had made purchases. The ld. Assessing Officer has disallowed 25% of the claim of the assessee out of purchases and depreciation. He has noticed all these details in paragraph No.4 of the assessment order. According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee has debited a total sum of ₹ 3,15,07,724/- under the head 'various expenses' including depreciation. The 25% of the total expenses were worked out to ₹ 78,76,931/-. The ld ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and commission for ₹ 2,78,10,483/- and ₹ 24,73,775/- respectively. The appellant has filed details of other expenses alongwith the major evidence, however, there is likely to be some personal elements in expenses like traveling and telephone expenses. I, therefore, sustain addition of ₹ 20% of traveling and telephone expenses which comes to ₹ 73,871/- 6. Before us, the ld. Departmental Representative contended that though the assessee has reconciled the purchases but still there is a discrepancy with regard to the purchases made from Ceratizit India (P) Ltd and Stanvac Chemicals India Ltd. These concerns did not response to the notices of the Assessing Officer. Therefore, ld. First Appellate Authority ought to h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssion payment shown by the assessee. Therefore, we do not find any error in the order of the CIT(A); accordingly, this ground of appeal is rejected. 10. In Ground No.2, the Revenue has pleaded that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 1,33,679/-. This addition has been made on an estimated basis out of commission income . According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee failed to submit the TDS details; therefore, he estimated the commission income. The ld. First Appellate Authority has deleted the addition on the ground that the commission income is verifiable from the TDS certificate. The finding of the CIT(A) in this regard is as under:- 6.4 The fourth ground of appeal is related to the addition of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
