TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 942X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any discrepancy or mistake in any manner. Under these circumstances, no such addition was legally maintainable. Even the order of the ld. CIT(A) for the A.Y. 2009-10 clearly indicates that the addition was made by the A.O. on presumption without pointing out any defect. Even the rectification order passed by the ld CIT(A) U/s 154 of the Act reversing his earlier findings, appears to be not legally sustainable in so far as there was no apparent mistake in his earlier order which could be rectified in garb of Section 154 of the Act. However, without commenting on the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) U/s 154 for the A.Y. 2009-10 reversing his earlier order passed, I do not find any merit in the ad hoc addition made during the years under cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... observed that out of total service receipts of ₹ 10,69,715/-, the assessee has claimed free service charges amounting to ₹ 10,29,044/-, if the amount of free service charges are excluded from the total service receipts declared than only an amount of ₹ 40,670/- remains for the paid service charges. The assessee is an authorized dealer of Hero Honda Motor Cycle at district headquarter and the majority of motor bikes are of the Hero Honda company then there would have been considerable charges on account of paid services. Not accepting the assessee s contention, the A.O. estimated additional income of ₹ 6.00 lacs on account of service charges. By the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the A.O. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd made addition of ₹ 6,00,000/- in service income. Hence I confirm the addition of ₹ 6,00,000/-. This ground is not allowed. 4. Shri K.L. Moolchandani, the ld AR appearing on behalf of the assessee has contended that during the course of assessment proceedings, a detailed ledger account of the Service Income was produced which was test checked by the Id. AO. Copy of such ledger account is submitted herewith in the paper book placed at pages No. 1 to 37). As per this account it is noted that all the receipts are properly accounted for and vouched. No discrepancy or any mistake could be pointed out in respect of such receipts. In absence any specific mistake or discrepancy, no valid addition can be made on 'presumptions& ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3,56,000/- allegedly made and confirmed by the AO CIT (A) in the assessment year 2009-10. On careful study of the said appeal order it is noted that initially such addition was deleted by the ld. CIT (A) vide para 5.3 at page no.8 of the appeal order which is being reproduced hereunder for ready reference: However, this cannot be a basis for making such addition in as much as there is nothing on record which may indicate that the assessee has suppressed any receipts. In fact, during the assessment proceedings even before the AO the assessee has filed explanation as to why such receipts have decreased. In this back-ground such addition of ₹ 3,56,000/- by the AO was simply on presumption basis that with the increased in the turn- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t did not object to the validity of the order with a view to get the proceedings concluded amicably to avoid further controversy on the point. 6. On the other hand, the ld DR has relied on the orders of the authorities below. 7. I have considered the rival contentions and carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below and found from the record that no basis has been given by any of the lower authorities for making ad hoc addition on account of service charges income. Even during the course of scrutiny assessment, no defect was pointed out by the A.O. in the books of account nor the same were rejected. In absence of any specific defect or discrepancy, no valid addition can be made. In the present case, the Authorities Below ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of ₹ 50,000/- on account of vehicle expenses and ₹ 5,000 on account of telephone expenses. I found that the disallowance has been made by the lower authorities on estimate basis and without pointing out any specific mistake or instance of disallowable nature of expenditure. Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, I restrict the disallowance on account of vehicle expenses to the extent of ₹ 25,000/- and ₹ 2,500/- on account of telephone expenses. 10. In the A.Y. 2013-14, the A.O. had made addition of ₹ 1,50,000/- out of petrol expenses and ₹ 10,000/- out of telephone expenses, which had been restricted by the ld. CIT(A) to the extent of ₹ 1,00,000/- on account of petro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
