TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (7) TMI 207
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce the basis of arriving at the sale figures is without any basis, whatsoever. 5. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 81,468/-, being the TDS deducted from the supplies made to East Central Railways, treating as contract, instead of supplied to Railways, and the entire sale of Rs. 77,78,724/- have been accounted for by the assessee as sales, in its Books of Accounts and, therefore, merely, because tax at source has been deducted by Railways, it does not become additional sale. 6. That the disallowance, out of Interest paid to partners amounting to Rs. 65,540/- is uncalled for and not in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act and therefore the disallowance be deleted. 7. That the entire Books of Accounts, including Bills, excise records, sales tax records, etc. have been made available and the so-called difference in the sales, alleged by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is imaginary and on account of the fact that he has neither understood nor enquired into this alleged difference in the sales. 8. That, without prejudice to the above, no opportunity, whatsoever, has been given be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....made by the AO was not justified. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee observed that the assessee had not been able to submit the full details or explanations as to why there was a difference in the sales figures which were submitted before the Excise Authorities and why there was a different and lower figure in the P & L account. He, therefore, confirmed the addition made by the AO. 8. Now the assessee is in appeal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the ld. CIT(A) and further submitted that the Gross Profit was already included in the sales and the AO added the same again to work out the imaginary figure of the sales. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) was not justified. 9. In his rival submissions the ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below. 10. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the AO worked out the figures of sales by adding the Gross Profit in the figure of the sales shown by the assessee. However, he had not rejected t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to submit any details or any reconciliation to show whether the sales amounting to Rs. 2,29,42,663/- also included the receipt of Rs. 77,78,724/- against which the assessee had claimed the TDS credit of Rs. 81,468/-. Accordingly, the disallowance made by the AO was confirmed. 14. Now the assessee is in appeal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and further submitted that the Gross receipts of Rs. 77,78,724/- were already included by the assessee in the total sales amounting to Rs. 2,29,42,663/- and the TDS amounting to Rs. 81,468/- was deducted by the East Central Railway, Hajipur, therefore, the credit was claimed for the said amount on account of tax deducted at source. It was further submitted that the TDS was wrongly deducted by the railways from the supply bills (a reference was made to page no 50 of the assessee's paper book which is the copy of clarification dated 23.08.2011 regarding deduction of tax issued by the East Central Railway, Hajipur). It was accordingly submitted that the TDS which was wrongly deducted by the Railway was claimed by the assessee but there was no difference in the figures of the sales, as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alance as on 31.03.2007 (AY 2007- 08) (Rs.) Closing balance as on 31.03.2008 (AY 2008-09) (Rs.) 1. Sh. B L Somani 54,447/- 54,447/- 2. Smt. Santosh Somani 1,42,143/- 1,42,143/- 3. Sh. V S Maheshwary 5,04,217/- 4,96,845/- 4. Mrs Sarita Maheshwary 14,05,054/- 14,33,282/- 5. Ms Sudha Maheshwary 1,02,159/- 1,02,160/- Total 22,08,021/- 22,28,877/- 19. the ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee observed that the assessee did not submit the full capital account of the partners even though the same was specifically asked, so it was difficult to understand as to why the assessee had not apportioned the loss to the partners of the firm and had not reduced the credit balance of the partners in the respective capital accounts which would have given a clear balance sheet about the net of the capital of the firm. He further observed that the assessee had deliberately shown the loss of the firm on the debit side of the balance sheet without reducing/disturbing the capital accounts of the partners of the assessee firm. The ld. CIT(A) also observed that when the explanation of the assessee was asked during th....