TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Supports CIT(A) Findings on Tax Appeal, Emphasizes Evidence and Compliance</h1> The Tribunal partly allowed one appeal and dismissed another, supporting the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]'s findings on both issues. The ... - Issues:1. Addition of Rs. 80,000 for excess wastage2. Treatment of certain sales as the assessee's own and not on behalf of alleged principalsAnalysis:Issue 1: Addition of Rs. 80,000 for excess wastageThe Income Tax Officer (ITO) made an addition of Rs. 80,000 in the export account due to excessive wastage in the conversion of cloth into coverlets. The ITO suggested the addition based on the excessive wastage observed. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] found the addition unnecessary after considering evidence presented by the assessee. The CIT(A) noted that records showed the quantity of goods sent for stitching and the quantity of coverlets received, allowing for a calculation of wastage. A certificate from a party involved in stitching confirmed the wastage amount. The CIT(A) observed that the wastage had no value and was not reclaimed by the assessee, leading to the deletion of the addition.Issue 2: Treatment of certain sales as the assessee's ownThe second issue revolved around the treatment of certain sales made by the assessee as the assessee's own, rather than on behalf of alleged principals. The ITO had estimated the turnover at Rs. 2.43 crores, taxing an amount of Rs. 8,35,524, including commissions received. The CIT(A) accepted new evidence presented by the assessee, including agreements with mills and letters confirming appointment as commission agents. The CIT(A) found this evidence sufficient to support the assessee's claim of acting as depot keepers for the mills. The Department raised concerns about the admission of additional evidence by the CIT(A) without proper notice to the ITO. However, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that once it was established that the assessee acted as depot keepers, no additional tax liability was warranted.In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed one appeal and dismissed another, supporting the CIT(A)'s findings on both issues. The judgment highlighted the importance of proper evidence and adherence to procedural rules in tax assessments.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
