TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (3) TMI 184
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Rs. 50,06,652. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961 and was later selected for scrutiny and notices u/s. 143(2) and 143(1) were issued. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to produce (i) trade creditors with address, (ii) ledger, (iii) details in partner capital account (electricity charges, (v) bank loan details, etc. Vide show-cause notice dated 23.12.2009 it was proposed by the Assessing Officer to add back 10% of the cultivator creditors as assessee failed to furnish full postal addresses. However, later considering that the assessee had already disclosed Rs. 25,00,000 in the earlier assessment year, the Assessing Officer restricted the proposed addition to 5% of the trade creditors and made addition of Rs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce with the department and filed the returns of income as under: Sl. No. Name of the assessee A.Y. Return of income Income offered for tax (Rs. 1. Padigela Rajeswar Ginning Industries 2006-07 Revised 25,00,000 2. Padigela Kedarnath HUF 2006-07 Original 5,00,000 3. Padigela Kedarnath Industries 2006-07 -do- 7,50,000 4. Smt. Padigela Rama Devi 2006-07 -do- 5,00,000 5. Padigela Krishna Santhosh 2006-07 -do- 7,50,000 5. It was submitted that even otherwise, as agreed to at the time of survey proceedings u/s. 133A, the assessee offered Rs. 50 lakhs as additional income in the firm and individual partners to cover any deficiencies or discrepanci....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....chases made, the turn over achieved, consumption, closing stock, trade results, etc. The CIT(A) stated that as per list submitted by the assessee in respect of trade creditors, there are trade creditors running into hundreds. The CIT(A) pointed out that the Assessing Officer did not dispute all these facts and only proceeded to disallow 5% of the trade creditors, after considering that the assessee had disclosed Rs. 25 lakhs in the earlier year. Under these circumstances, the CIT(A) held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer does not have legs to stand. Accordingly, the CIT(A) deleted the addition. 8. With respect to the electricity charges, the CIT(A) held that the electricity charges are paid to the Government held body and t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Though the above version was accepted partly, the assessee failed to produce the concerned parties. 3. The learned CIT(A), erred in allowing Rs. 50.00 lakhs in the hands of the firm. Yes, it is submitted that the assessee-firm had admitted Rs. 25.00 lakhs in the firm's hand and balance in the hands of the partners. But, the assessee filed 'revised' ROI relating to the firm admitting Rs. 25.00 lakhs and balance income was not offered by filing' 'revised' ROI, and that this admitted income was already offered 'originally'. 4. The learned. CIT(A), ought to have appreciated the fact that during survey 133A, the assessee-firm and the Revenue had mutually agreed for addi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....horities in respect of trade creditors, there are trade creditors running into hundreds. The Assessing Officer did not dispute all these facts and only proceeded to disallow 5% of the trade creditors, after considering that the assessee had disclosed Rs. 25 lakhs in the earlier year. Under these circumstances, the CIT(A) held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer does not have legs to stand. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) and uphold the same. The ground raised by the Revenue on this issue is dismissed. 11. With regard to the electricity charges, we find that the transactions have been recorded in the books and are genuine payments in the course of business. By Rule 6DD(b) the payments are exempted as th....