TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 302X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ined to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) and upheld the same and dismiss the grounds of appeal of the assessee. - ITA No. 2771/Mum/2007 - - - Dated:- 7-12-2020 - Shri Shamim Yahya, Accountant Member And Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judicial Member For the Appellant : None For the Respondent : Shri Sunil Deshpande, DR ORDER PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE - JM: The assessee has filed an appeal against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai, passed u/s.143(3) and 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The appeal, for the A.Y 2002-03 was filed with the Hon ble Tribunal on 29.06.2007.The appeal was posted for hearing from the date of filing to till today i.e 31 times. On verifying the order sheet fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... These material was regularly used by us. Due to moisture some of the material deteriorate and was not useable. It is simply waste for us. After negotiation and showing the material to different parties/agents/suppliers some of the quantity sent to them for approval basis at the agreed price, lower than purchase price . 3. The Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is engaged in the business of trading and export of Hosiery goods and woolen items. The return of income for the A.Y 2002-03 was filed on 20.10.2002 declaring the total income of ₹ 1,84,810/-.The return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act along with questio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... im and with other additions assessed the total income of ₹ 1, 08,04,600/- and passed the order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 29.03.2005. 4.Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal with the CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) considered the grounds of appeal, findings of the A.O and submissions of the assessee and granted the relief on other grounds of appeal but has confirmed the addition of difference of gross profit of ₹ 32,22,930/-as the assessee has not filed any supporting evidences in respect of the claims before the A.O, and even before the CIT(A) no evidence could be furnished to substantiate the sale price. In respect of loss declared by the assessee, the A.O has rejected the set off and was confirmed by the CIT(A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jected and are poor quality items. Therefore, they are sold in the local market at a lower rate of gross prof it. 1.4 Further it was pleaded that due to bulk buying in earlier years, the opening stock of acrylic tow and synthetic waste gathered moisture and therefore after negotiations they were sold at a lower price. 1.5 The undersigned has carefully perused through the rival contentions. 1.6 It is however an admitted fact that no supporting details was furnished before the A.O. 1.7 Moreover, even before the undersigned, yet the appellant furnished a few copies of bills regarding the purchases of materials mentioned above, yet no evidence could be furnished to substantiate the sales prices. No evidences were either furn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
