TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 488
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld.CIT(Appeals) was wholly unjustified in applying the GP rate of 10% (as against 12% by Assessing Officer) instead of 9.67% declared by the appellant. 1.2 Because the application of GP rate of 10% by the learned CIT(Appeals) as against 12% by the Assessing Officer is also wholly arbitrary being not based on any material and therefore partial addition sustained of Rs. 1,03,270/- is contrary to facts and law." 3. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the GP addition was partly sustained by the learned CIT(A) by applying a GP rate of 10% as against 9.67% declared by the assessee and thereby confirming the part addition of Rs. 1,03,270/- in the income of the assessee. He submitted that the Assessing Officer has applied a GP rate of 12% in this case which was found to be very excessive. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has made a surrender of Rs. 4.5 lakhs separately and the credit thereof has been allowed by the CIT(A) while determining the GP addition in this case. He submitted that during the year, the assessee has declared higher sales of Rs. 3.12 crores and the GP rate of 8.23% as against the sales of Rs. 2.05 crores and GP rate of 8.30% ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....years during the relevant period. The Revenue could not controvert the submissions of the assessee that the fair market rent of the business premises was still more than the amount paid by the assessee. In these facts of the case, we are of the view that there was no justification for sustaining the addition of Rs. 15,000/- on account of rent paid and the addition made is deleted and ground No.2 of the assessee's appeal is allowed. 9. Ground No.3 of the assessee's appeal is as under:- "Because the customer welfare expenses of Rs. 42,536/- were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business and therefore the ld.CIT(Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming disallowance of Rs. 6,400/-." 10. We have heard the parties. We find that the learned CIT(A) has confirmed the disallowance of Rs. 6,400/- out of total customer welfare expenses of Rs. 42,536/-. We find that the expenses under this head has increased two-fold in comparison to the immediately preceding assessment year. The disallowance sustained by the CIT(A) could not be said to be excessive and accordingly is confirmed and ground No.3 of the assessee's appeal is dismissed. 11. Ground No.4 of the asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s 49143/-, office expenses Rs. 47015/-, totaling Rs. 2,09,886/- were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business and therefore the ld.CIT(Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming disallowance to the extent of Rs. 31,482/- out of such expenses." 18. We have heard the parties. We find that disallowance of Rs. 31,482/- was sustained by learned CIT(A) out of sales promotion expenses of Rs. 48,300/-, shop expenses of Rs. 65,428/-, packing expenses of Rs. 49,143/- and office expenses of Rs. 47,015/- totaling to Rs. 2,09,886/-. We find that learned CIT(A) has passed a well-reasoned order on this issue and his order does not deserve any interference. Accordingly, the order of learned CIT(A) on this issue is confirmed and ground No.7 of the assessee's appeal is dismissed. 19. Ground No.8 & 8.1 of the assessee's appeal read as under:- "8. Because the interest paid @ 15% to the family members was very reasonable and therefore the learned CIT(Appeals) was not justified in confirming the allowable interest rate @ 12% and thereby confirming the addition of Rs. 114315/-. 8.1 Because keeping in view of the facts of the case the learned CIT(Appeals) should have h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....GP rate of 10% in the case of Smt. Saroj Rani and, accordingly, we hold that there is no merit in ground No.1 of the Revenue's appeal, which is dismissed. 25. Ground No.2 reads as under:- "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 1,51,116/- out of Rs. 2,59,998/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of various expenses by ignoring the fact that these expenses were either excessive or fully unvouched and unverifiable." 26. Learned DR has relied on the order of the Assessing Officer and learned counsel for the assessee has relied on the order of the CIT(A). 27. We have heard the parties. We find that learned CIT(A) has passed a well-reasoned order on this issue and the disallowance was partly deleted by the CIT(A) as was not found excessive in the facts of the case and was mainly verifiable. In these facts of the case, we hold that no interference is called for in the order of learned CIT(A). Accordingly, the order of learned CIT(A) on this issue is confirmed and ground No.2 of the Revenue's appeal is dismissed. 28. Ground No.3 of the Revenue's appeal is as under:- "On the facts and in the circumsta....