9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1670X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting the addition of Rs.l33,02,075/- on account of understated production/suppressed production. ii) The Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of interest expenses of Rs. 1,92,000/- made u/s.36(l)(iii) of the Act. iii) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. iv) It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (A) may be set-aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 2. In this case, during the Assessment Year under consideration, the assessee-firm has recorded turnover of Rs. 23,88,91,361/- and disclosed Gross Profit of Rs. 1,62,17,370/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stated production/suppressed production and made addition of Rs. 1,33,02,075/-. 5. Against the said addition, assessee preferred first statutory appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who granted relief to the assessee. 6. We have gone through the relevant record and impugned order. As we can see, assessee had supplied all the relevant details to the lower authorities such as register which are subject to regular check and subject to audit, Raw material Register, production register and audited books of account with tax audit report and there was specific defect was found by the ld. A.O. Therefore, in our considered opinion, ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition of Rs. . 1,33,02,075/-. Therefore, we do not want to interfere in the order pas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring previous year relevant to assessment year 2007-08 - Whether in peculiar facts of case amount in question could not be added back in income of assessee as deemed income under section 41(1) - Held, yes [Para 8] [In favour of assessee]" 9. As we can see facts of the assessee case is identical to the above said judgment therefore, respectfully following the aforesaid judgment, we are not inclined to interfere in the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 10.Now we come to C.O. No. 309/Ahd/2014. The appellant has taken following grounds: 1. Confirming the addition of Rs. 2,67,837/- originally made by the AO in respect of the old, brought forward liability of this amount towards M/s Om Steel, wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly to this ground as well. Therefore, we allow this objection of the assessee. 12. So far ground no. 2 of C.O. is concerned with regard to confirming the addition of Rs. 14,029/- is concerned, being unexplained expenditure for setting up shed because for constructing a shed, assessee did not included the payment of labour charges and assessee did not submitted any evidence in support of its contention. Therefore, lower authorities rightly made the addition of Rs. 14,029/- and same does not require any kind of any interference at our end and same is dismissed. 13. So far ground no. 3 of C.O. is concerned with regard to confirming the addition of Rs. 15,000/- is concerned, At page no. 58 of the ld. CIT(A) and Para No. 56 ld. CIT(A) alread ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
