TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 46X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is, we delete addition based on undisclosed purchases by applying GP rate at ₹ 95,654/-, (@ 3.11% of ₹ 30,75,702), and under section 69C as unexplained expenditure ₹ 30,75,702/-]. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.500/Kol/2017 - - - Dated:- 22-11-2017 - SHRI A. T. VARKEY, JM AND DR. A.L.SAINI, AM For The Appellant : Shri Suvo Chakraborty, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri Sallong Yaden, ACIT ORDER Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM: The captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to assessment year 2011-12, is directed against the order passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- Burdwan in Appeal No.114/CIT(A)/Asl/Wd.1(2)/Bwn/2014-15, dated 13.12.2016, which in turn a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is, AO applied GP rate 3.11% on undisclosed purchases at ₹ 30,75,702/- and the same amount also treated as unexplained expenditure U/s 69C, hence all the grounds raised by the assessee are related to each other and are being adjudicated together. The main grievance of the assessee, in this appeal is that the addition based on GP rate and addition on account of unexplained expenditure are bad in law, and should be deleted. 3.1. The brief facts qua the issue are that the assessee had furnished his return of income for the assessment year 2011-12 declaring a taxable income of ₹ 1,45,190/- on 30.01.2012. The assessee had declared income under the head of income from Profit Gains from Business. The observations and additions mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... keting Federation Company Ltd of ₹ 36,42,098/-. Hence, the difference comes to ₹ 860/-(Rs. 36,72,958/-- ₹ 36,42,098/- - ₹ 30000 other adjustment noted by AO), the same was treated as undisclosed purchases. The AO aggregated the total differences as (i) + (ii) +(iii)+ (iv), that is, ₹ 30,17,341/- + ₹ 42,658/- + ₹ 14,843/- + ₹ 860/- = ₹ 30,75,702/- and applied GP rate @3.11% and made addition of ₹ 95,645/- ( ₹ 30,75,702/- x @ 3.11%). The assessing officer also made the addition U/s 69-C of the Act at ₹ 30,75,702/- observing that total differences in purchase has not been proved by the assessee due to input VAT, as claimed by the assessee. 3.2. Aggrieved by the ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m AO and the said remand report has not been considered by the CIT(A) at all, therefore it is gross negligence on the part of CIT(A). That is, CIT(A) had adjudicated the assessee s appeal without considering the remand report, which is violation of natural justice. The Income Tax Officer, ward-1 (2) submitted the remand report to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on dated 05.05.2016 wherein he stated that: The total difference in purchase figure as found by the AO to the tune of ₹ 30,75,702/- was added as unexplained expenditure as the same was considered to be originated from some undisclosed source. Now, as stated above in the earlier point, the purchase figure as disclosed by the assessee and different parties have been v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
