TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 1087X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere is no dispute that the impugned amount received from IOC is not declared in the turnover of the assessee. The above amount whether it constitute income has not been disputed by the assessee before the Tribunal. Hence, the addition is confirmed. Enhancement of purchases by CIT-A - total purchases during the financial year 2014-2015 as per the IOC statement was more than trading account of the assessee showing purchases - HELD THAT:- As per the IOC statement, the total purchases made by the assessee was at ₹ 9,28,86,503. As per the assessee's trading account, the purchases from IOC is only a sum of ₹ 9,28,81,970. Therefore, the difference of ₹ 4,526 is sustained. As regards the enhancement, the CIT(A) relied on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly, ground Nos. 3, 4 and 5 read as follows:- 3. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in sustaining the addition made on alleged undisclosed sales amounting to ₹ 10,97,132/- on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition made on toll charges amounting to ₹ 24,370/- on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in enhancing the addition made with regards to alleged purchases made from undisclosed income from ₹ 4,526/- to ₹ 7,950/- without complying the mandatory conditions laid down u/s. 251(2) on the facts and circumstances of the case. We shall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ges enclosing therein copy of audited balance sheet and profit and loss account for the relevant assessment year, communication of the assessee before the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A), copy of the return filed under VAT, copy of the statement issued by the IOC, etc. The learned AR reiterated the submissions made before the Income Tax Authorities. 4.3. The learned Departmental Representative supported the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). 4.4. I have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. The assessee even before the Tribunal could not reconcile the difference as per the sales disclosed in the VAT return and as per the trading account maintained by the assessee. Since the assessee has not been abl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re, the difference of ₹ 4,526 was brought to tax. 6.1. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal to the first appellate authority. Before the first appellate authority, the A.O. in the remand report submitted that as per VAT report, the purchases of petroleum products is declared at ₹ 9,28,89,927 annually and in the assessment order it is as ₹ 9,26,86,507, as per the details furnished by the IOC. Therefore, the additional difference of ₹ 3,424 was also brought to tax. In other words, the CIT(A) enhanced the addition to ₹ 7,950 instead of ₹ 4,326 made by the Assessing Officer. 6.2. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6.3. I have heard rival submissions and perused the mater ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
