TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 408X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13, & I.T.A .No. 625//DEL/2015 - - - Dated:- 10-4-2017 - SHRI R.S. SYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Appellant : Sh. Sanjay Malik, Adv For The Respondent : Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM These appeals are filed by the assessee against the order dated 23/3/2011, 19/9/2013 17/11/2014 respectively passed by CIT(A)- Muzaffarnagar. 2. The grounds of appeal are as under: - ITA No. 3308/Del/2011 1. That the learned CIT (A) on facts and in law and on the grounds taken and the basis adopted went wrong to uphold the disallowance of exemption u/s 80P(2)(a)(iv) of the I.T. Act. The exemption as claimed deserves to be allowed. 2. That the income arising from the letting of godowns was covered by the provisions of Sec. 80P(2)(e) of the I.T. Act and accordingly Appellant was entitled to deductions under the said provision. The deduction as claimed deserves to be allowed. 3. The learned CIT (A) on facts and in law and on the grounds taken and basis adopted went wrong to uphold the disallowance of the claimed exemptions. The adverse and erroneous findings deserve to be quashed being illeg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4,97,932.64 Consumer Store 7,27,254.81 Printing Press 8,08,374.67 Cold Storage 4,34,705.92 30,84,735.44 24,68,467.74 The net profit of ₹ 6,16,467,74/- so derived above was claimed to be exempted u/s 80P(2) (i)(a). It was noticed by the A.O that the profit is mainly due to interest and head office (Fertilizers sale transportation storage). The A.O also gathered on examining the two accounts that income from transportation at ₹ 5,59,596/- and income from storage ₹ 10,97,454/- credited in the head office account are not exempt u/s 80P(2) of the Act. Similarly, the sale purchase of fertilizer is not exempt u/s 80P(2)(i)(a)(iv) as it was not a sale of fertilizer among members but a sale to IFFCO and KRIBHCO. The A.O also held that the interest income and dividend income is also not exempt u/s 80P(2)(a)(i). The assessee was required to explain why the assessment may not be completed at income of ₹ 6,16,467/- vide no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the assessment order the assessee filed appeal before the CIT (A). The CIT (A) upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that there was a loss under different head of business and the only positive income was under income from interest and dividend which is exempt u/s 80P (2)(d) of the Act. The other income is also exempt as the assessee was engaged in activity of purchase of agricultural equipments etc. The Ld. AR submitted that the discrepancy pointed out by the Assessing Officer was already before the Assessing Officer as the entries made in the stock register was not at all disputed by the Assessing Officer. But the fact remains how the Assessing Officer arrived at the conclusion without taking into consideration that the sale was from the previous years. The Ld. AR further submitted that the entry for stock register relating to Assessment Year 2006-07 was reproduced by the Assessing Officer in his order along with the statement of one employee Shri Surender Kumar was also mentioned wherein he stated that the same entries issued in his name by Muzaffarnagar Distt. Cooperative Development Federation Ltd. i.e. the assessee to the extent of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 057/- deserve to be quashed and the exemption as claimed deserves to be allowed. 2. That the income arising from the letting of godowns was governed by provisions of section 80P(2)(e) of the I.T. Act. The Learned CIT (A) went wrong on facts and in law to sustain the disallowance. The adverse and erroneous findings recorded by the Ld. CIT (A) deserve to be quashed and the exemption, as claimed, deserves to be allowed. 3(a). That the declared version in the Printing Press Division was well supported and substantiated by a method of accounting regularly employed in as much as all the items on the debit and credit side were verifiable and no error of omission or commission was found or detected in the method of accounting and also all the items recorded on the debit and credit side of the account were not found and held to be non-genuine. (b). The learned CIT (A) on facts and in law and the grounds taken and the basis adopted went wrong to uphold the disallowance of loss of ₹ 3,24,632/- in the Printing Press Division. The erroneous findings recorded by the Ld. CIT (A) deserve to be quashed and the loss, as claimed, deserves to be allowed. 4(a). That the de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - ITA No. 6613/Del/2013 . 1) That the Ld. CIT (Appeal) has erred in rejecting the appeal u/s 154 without considering the facts of the case. 2) That the appellant has shown all the transportation charges in its return and the A.O. is wrong to add the transportation charges of gas at ₹ 5157121-00 whereas the same is disclosed and the commission received on these receipts are shown at Rs. The receipts are endorsed to different contactors and TDS is deducted and deposited by the appellant. 1 lence addition under this head is wrong and should have been rectified. 3) That the Ld. A.O. has erred to reject the application u/s 154 filed by the appellant without going through the records. 4) That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in not considering the derails and evidences filed by the appellant at the time of appellate proceedings and rejecting the appeal on different ground. 16. As relates to ITA No. 625/Del/2015 the issue in this matter is related to rejecting the application u/s 154 without considering the facts of the case. There was no notice given by the Assessing Officer as per the submission made by the Ld. AR. The order under challenge is that of a r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
