TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 543X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case in hand. There is no question of cessation of liability and, therefore, the CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming the addition under the said section. There is no finding by the Assessing Officer that the purchases were bogus and corresponding sales are also bogus - no corroborative evidence brought on record to make addition - decided in favour of assessee. Addition under various heads - Held that:- AO has made addition taking the g.p. rate as basis, the CIT(A) confirmed part disallowance on a different reasoning. The basis given by the first appellate authority is by comparing the turnover of immediately preceding assessment year with that of the year under consideration. The ratio so determined by the CIT(A) does not have any strong ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ingh Suresh Chandra Sarees Pvt Ltd. though the notice was served but there was no compliance. The assessee was confronted with the result of the enquiries made u/s 133(6) of the Act. The assessee was once again given an opportunity to produce the party alongwith confirmation to establish the veracity of the transactions made by the Assessing Officer. On receiving no plausible reply, the Assessing Officer proceeded by making addition of ₹ 2,88,240/-. 4. The assessee agitated the matter before the ld. CIT(A) and explained that from M/s Hoshiar Singh Suresh Chandra Sarees Pvt Ltd., the assessee had made purchases. Supporting bills were furnished and verified by the Assessing Officer and no discrepancy was found. It was strongly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct apply on the facts of the case in hand. There is no question of cessation of liability and, therefore, the ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming the addition under the said section. There is no finding by the Assessing Officer that the purchases were bogus and corresponding sales are also bogus. In the absence of any corroborative evidence brought on record, I do not find any merit in the addition so made. I direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of ₹ 2,88,240/-. Ground No. 1 is allowed. 9. Ground No. 2 relates to the addition of ₹ 96,758/- under various heads. 10. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the A.O was of the opinion that the supporting bills and vouchers in respect of the follo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee contended that the details and bills of expenses were produced but the ld. CIT(A) did not buy the same to be correct. However, the ld. CIT(A) was of the opinion that for the purpose of business, certain expenses must have been incurred by the assessee. Therefore, to test the reasonableness of the expenses, the ld. CIT(A) made the following working: Sale for A/Y 2007-08 2,77,00,870 Sale for A/Y 2006-07 2,83,74,544 Ratio 0.9762578 For AY 2007-08 For AY 2006-07 Proportionate Allowable exp. Difference Disall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 189688 172610 168511.8595 21176.14054 21176.14054 Vehicle Running 72526 37245 36360.72189 36165.27811 36165.27811 96758.01451 13. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to ₹ 96,758/-. 14. The ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently contended that the basis on which the disallowance was confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) are not only erroneous but also illogical. 15. Per contra, the ld. DR supported the findings of the lower authorities. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
