9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 635X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e has not informed the assessee about said appellate order. It was also submitted that the assessee came to know in respect of passing of the appellate order, from the office of Income-tax, Tikamgarh and thereafter steps were taken to file the appeal with ITAT, and hence, there is some delay in filing the appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. It is prayed that there is sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the stipulated time. 2.2 Ld. Sr. DR has no serious objections on condonation of delay. 2.3 After hearing both the parties and perusing the material on record, I am of the view that the delay of 29 days in filing the present appeal beyond the time prescribed u/s 253(3) needs to be condoned. The assessee is not likely to gain anything by filing the appeal belatedly. If substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, courts will lean towards advancement of substantial justice, unless malice on part of litigant is at writ large. I do not find any malice on the part of the assessee in filing this appeal belatedly. Hence, I condone the delay of 29 days, and proceed to adjudicate this appeal on merits. Reliance is placed on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This led to the addition of Rs. 3,83,079/- to the income of the assessee on account of low GP declared by the assessee. 3.2 Further there was addition made by the Assessing Officer by disallowing the gift and donation expenses to the tune of Rs. 1,17,600/-, which as per Assessing Officer does not seem to be business expense. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has claimed that keeping in view the turnover/sale of Rs. 16,26,34,685/-, the said expenses are not huge amount. The assessee furnished ledger account in respect of gift and donation expenses, but no bills and vouchers were produced by the assessee in support of his claim. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 1,17,600/- on account of disallowance of gifts and donation expenses. 3.3 Further, the assessee claimed festival expenses of Rs. 55,650/-, which as per Assessing Officer is not business expense. The assessee submitted that festival expenses to the tune of Rs. 55,650/- was incurred on occasion of festivals, like Diwali, Holi, New Year etc. and were given to employees as well as the customers. However, the assessee furnished ledger accounts but no bills and vouchers were given. Hence, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned CIT Appeal has erred on facts and in law while sustaining the addition for Rs. 1,17,600.00 made by disallowing the expenses under the head " Donation Expenses", no addition is liable to be made, addition made by the AO sustained by the CIT Appeal is liable to be deleted. 3. That the learned CIT Appeal has erred on facts and in law while sustaining the addition of Rs. 55,650.00 made by the AO by disallowing the expenses under the head " Festival Expenses". No addition is liable to be sustained, addition made by the AO, sustained by the CIT Appeal is liable to be deleted. 4. That the CIT Appeal has erred on facts and in law, while sustaining the additions of Rs. 67,500.00 and Rs. 82,500.00 made by disallowing of the expenses under the head " Advertisement and Travelling Expenses". No additions are liable to be sustained, additions made by the AO, sustained by the CIT Appeal are liable to be deleted. 5. That while sustaining the additions, the learned CIT Appeal has not considered the nature of the business and the facts of the case, particularly when regular books of accounts are being maintained duly audited, book result is reasonable and the products sold by the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and arbitrary additions have been made. Reliance has been placed on the decision of Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Anil Kumar & Co. (2016) 67 taxmann.com 278 (Karnataka). The GP rate declared by the assessee is on higher side than the preceding year. 6. I have considered the rival contentions and perused the material on record. I have observed that the assessee is engaged in the business of diesel and petrol pumps. The assessee has declared turnover of Rs. 16.26 crores. Case of the assessee was selected by Revenue through CASS for framing scrutiny assessment. Statutory notices were issued during assessment proceedings by the AO. The assessee participated in the assessment proceedings. Several notices u/s 142(1) and SCN's u/s 144 were issued by the AO, but the same remained non complied with by the assessee. It is observed that the assessee submitted part replies before the Assessing Officer, and that too at the fag end. The AO made addition on account of enhanced GP rate of 2.17% of the gross turnover based on GP rate declared by other petrol pumps in the vicinity, as against GP rate of 1.93% declared by the assessee. The assessee did not produced books of accounts, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... then adjudicate appeal on the issues arising in appeal before them, based on decision and reasoning of ld. CIT(A) in deciding the issues. If the ld. CIT(A) simply dismiss the appeal merely because the assessee did not comply with the notices issued by ld. CIT(A) in limine without adjudicating issues arising in the appeal on merits, such order is not sustainable in the eyes of law keeping in view provisions of Section 250(6), and also higher appellate authorities will be deprived to see what weighed in the mind of the ld. CIT(A) while adjudicating appeal as it will be an order passed without reasoning on the issues on merits. As per Section 250(6), the ld. CIT(A) has to state point for determination, his decision and reasoning thereof. The appellate order of the CIT(A) is clearly in violation of section 250(6) of the Act and liable to be set aside. Merely stating the assessment order passed by AO is upheld, and that the assessee has not submitted details/documents is not sufficient. The ld. CIT(A) is not toothless as his powers are co-terminus with the powers of the AO., which even includes power of enhancement. It is equally true that the assessee also did not complied with the not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
