9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 94X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the tune of Rs. 14,40,340/- against export sales of Rs. 31,21, 380/- to Bangladesah. 2. For that in course of hearing of the case and passing the order the Ld. CIT(A) erred in disallowing bona fide transportation charges and damage claim paid by the appellant of Rs. 2,31,500/- and Rs. 1,45,000/- respectively and related export for export. 3. For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in deriving 40% profit on alleged undisclosed export sales of Rs. 31,21,380/-, which is excessive and unjustified and in reality such net profit in the hands of small businessman never exists. " 2. The facts pertaining to the aforesaid grounds are that the AO noted that the assessee has filed his return of income declaring tot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chases shown in the ITR is to the tune of Rs. 40,69,189/- and purchases as per export import data was to the tune of Rs. 56,89,985/- and since the assessee failed to file any document to substantiate/reconcile this mismatch in respect of the purchases, the difference i.e. Rs. 56,89,985 - Rs. 14,69,189/- which comes to Rs. 16,20,796/- was treated as purchase from undisclosed source of fund. Thereafter, the AO notes from a perusal of the records that as per the export import data, the assessee has paid custom duty of Rs. 2,97,095/- whereas custom duty paid in the income tax return is shown as 'Nil'. Hence, the omission to show Rs. 2,97,095/- was treated as undisclosed investment and added to the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved, the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which was also according to Ld. CIT(A) neither disclosed in the account nor in the return. Taking note of this fact the Ld. CIT(A) asked the assessee to recast his export sale account which was submitted by the assessee as under: Receipt Amount in Rs. Payments Amount in Rs. To Import purchase 16,20,796 By export sales 31,21,380 To damage claim paid 1,45,000 To godown rent 1,56,021 To import duty 2,97,095 To transportation charges 2,31,500 To net profit 6,70,968 31,21,380 31,21,380 4. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) has disallowed the expenditure claimed by the assessee on account of damages to the tune of Rs. 1,45,000/- and the tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the assessee was to the tune of Rs. 16,20,796/-. So, the difference/mistake per se is (Rs. 16,20,796/- - Rs. 14,60,834/-) i.e. = Rs. 1,69,962/-. The Ld. AR contended that, if the damages claimed of Rs.l,45,000/- and the transportation charges for the export business claimed of Rs. 2,31,500/- is allowed then it comes to Rs. 3,76,500/- then the net profit would come to Rs. 5,46,462/- (Rs. 1,69,962 + Rs. 1,45,000 + Rs. 2,31,5001-) whereas the assessee has shown net profit of Rs. 6,70,968/- which is reasonable and, therefore, ought to have been accepted. We note that the assessee has imported fruit juice and biscuits from Bangladesh. The assessee has imported the purchases against LC and payments were made through banking channel which has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urred for levy of import duty Rs. 2,97,095/- and (4) expenditure incurred for transportation of goods to the tune of Rs. 2,31,500/- and thus, has shown a net profit of Rs. 6,70,168/-. However, the Ld. CIT(A) has allowed the expenses claimed for (i) godown rent and (2) import duty Rs. 1,56,021/- and Rs. 2,97,095/-, however, disallowed expenses claimed on account of (1) damages paid and (2) transport charges to the tune of Rs. 2,31,500/- and thereafter re-casted the income of the assessee in respect of the export and concluded that assessee's net profit from undisclosed income is Rs. 14,44,340/-. Against the action of Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. AR contended that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in recasting the income of the assessee. For that the Ld. AR pointe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
