9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (7) TMI 95X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Rs. 6,86,933 was exempt under the provisions of ss. 80P(2)(a)(iii) and 80P(2)(a)(iv). The details of this as filed in the computation of income annexed with the return of income are as follows: Rs. "1. Income from sale of produce of members as shown in Arhat a/c 4,706.96 2. Profit in sale of fertilizer to members . 9,19,826.50 9,24,533.46 Less —Propotionate expenditure . Gross income 11,67,800 . Gross expenses 3,00,000 . Propotionate expenses . 9,25,000 = 30,000 = 2,37,600.00 11,68,000 6,86,933.46 During the course of the original assessment proceedings, the appellants pointed out to the ITO that the total gross profit on the sale of fertilizer amounted to Rs. 7,99,365 disclosed in the trading a/c along with a sum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tial order after looking into all these facts estimated the exempted income at Rs. 6,50,000 against the assessee's claim of Rs. 6,86,933 and completed the assessment on 28th Feb., 1977 determining the total income at Rs. 2,03,925. Subsequently, the record of the appellant seems to have been audited by the internal audit who came to the conclusion that the basis of this figure of Rs. 9,19,826 being profit on sale of fertilizer to its members was not indicated by the appellant and since there was no separate trading a/c in r/o sales to members the profit on sale of fertilizer to is members on a proportionate basis amounted to Rs. 5,54,000 and Rs. 9,19,826. The audit, therefore, came the conclusion that the income which would have been exempte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ced in the instant case. The ld. Counsel for the assessee Mr. Ram Kumar had nothing to say except relying on the order of the CIT (A). 5. After taking into consideration the rival submissions and going carefully through the record, we find that the CIT (A) has given following office note in his order : "The ITO had informed the audit that there was no substance in the audit objection. This was not acceded to by the audit vide their letter No. 24145 dt. 14th March., 1980 on the ground that the list of the members given by the assessee at pages bearing Sr. Nos. 38 and 39 does not show the particulars of the persons to whom the sales were made as relevant columns are blank in these pages. Whereas pages No. 1 to 37 consists of sales to indi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
