9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 529X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tice available to the Revenue. 2. The LD. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in deleting the disallowances made u/s. 43B out of VAT and Entry Tax on the ground that in the revised return the assesse has added back the same. However, the ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that, the items covered u/s. 43B totaled to Rs. 3,68,54,079/- and income as per the original return was Rs. 32,05,900/- and therefore, the revised return should have been Rs.4,00,59,797/-, against which the revised return is only Rs. 3,12,26,463/- and therefore there is no explanation of the remaining sum of Rs. 88,33,516/-. Therefore, even if cognizance of revised return is taken, there is still unexplained difference of Rs.88,33,516/- which is required to be disallowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, prayed that that order of the Ld. CIT (A) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored." 3. The assessee company is engaged in the business of dealership of Ford Brand Passenger Cars and running authorised service station. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that as per the balance sheet, the assessee has not paid VAT amounting to Rs.2,99,83,250/- (Rajkot) and Rs. 68,70,829/- (Jamnagar) totalling to Rs. 3,68,54,079. In absence of proof of payment, the amount of Rs. 3,68,54,079/- was disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee under Section 43B. Further, the Assessing Officer observed that Rs. 32,19,912/- was shown as short term provision and the same was disallowed. Further, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed return should have been Rs. 4,00,59,59,797/-, against which the revised return is only Rs. 3,12,26,463/- and therefore there is no explanation of the remaining sum of Rs. 88,33,516/-. Therefore, the assessee has not given proper explanation related to said amount of Revised return. As regards to Ground No. 3, the Ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance made of Rs. 32,19,912/- being short term provisions appearing in the balance sheet on the basis of fresh evidence. As regards to Ground No. 4, the Ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 18,10343/- made out of spare part expenditure, which was claimed for the first time without appreciating the fact that the onus to prove the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dismissed. As regards to Ground No. 2, the observation made by the CIT(A) that the Assessing Officer ignored the details of revised return and in fact the revised return includes the disallowed amount of entry tax and VAT. The Assessing Officer totally ignored the fact that when the said amount was already disallowed there cannot be disallowance of the same because the revised return had replaced the original return prior to assessment and even prior to issue of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. Thus, there is no need to interfere with the finding of the CIT(A). Ground No. 2 is dismissed. As regards to Ground No. 3, the CIT(A) had observed that if the Assessing Officer had looked at the further details of the balance sheet it would ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
