9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 828X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) is bad in law and therefore, it may kindly be quashed. 2. On facts and in law as well as in the circumstances of the case of the appellant, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining disallowance of Sundry expenses to the extent of 10% i.e. Rs. 23,000/- on account of car vehicle repairing, Rs. 1,700/- on account of scooter repairing, Rs. 10,000/- on account of petrol, diesel and maintenance expenses, Rs. 11,250/- on account of travelling expenses and Rs. 7,000/- on account of telephone expenses, when there is no justification in confirming such adhoc expenses being a case of company assessee in view of decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sayaji Iron & Engg. Co. Vs. CIT 253 ITR 339(Guj.). The same may be deleted. 3. On fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld so. 8. On facts and in law as well as in the circumstances of the case of the appellant, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining disallowance of Rs. 64,25,896/- on account of stock difference, when there is no justification in confirming such disallowance. The same may be deleted. 9. On facts and in law as well as in the circumstances of the case of the appellant, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining disallowance of Rs. 94,000/- on account of unexplained repair charges, when there is no justification in confirming such disallowance. The same may be deleted. 2. Out of nine grounds, ground nos. 1,2,3,4 & 9 have not pressed by the assessee on account of smallness of tax effect. 3. Briefly facts of the case are that the appellant is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ort u/s. 44AB of the Act, the same is at page 143 & 144 of the paper book. Since the audited books of accounts were not rejected and the book results stand accepted and also the alleged discrepancy stand duly reconciled. Therefore, we have no hesitation in deleting the addition made of Rs. 33,58,214/-. Thus this ground of appeal is allowed. 9. Now we come to ground relating to confirming the disallowance of Rs. 4,39,034/- on account of cash shortage by the ld. CIT(A). 10. Ld. A.O. has discussed the issue in Para 21 of the assessment order. As per A.O. there was a difference of cash of Rs. 4,39,034/- found at the business premises of the assessee. However, the assessee stated some of the amount was lying at the residence of the Director. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd addition has been made solely on the accounting and weighing of the stock. 13. Assessee cited an order of Jurisdictional High Court in the matter of K. Chokshi wherein it is mentioned that the statement was taken in the course of survey proceeding which is legally but no binding force, as assessee has also retracted the statement and assessee is subject to excise duty and excise department has not found any discrepancy in the stock of the assessee. Therefore, in these circumstances, an addition made by the department cannot sustain. Therefore, we delete the addition of Rs. 64,25,896/-. 14. However, on referring to paper book page 309 to 311, we find that in respect of the following item, there is still remains discrepancy inasmuch as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
