2015 (11) TMI 1540

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....). 2. We find that the Learned DR as well as the Learned AR advanced arguments in respect of an addition made towards discrepancy in expenses in the sum of Rs. 11,43,899/-. This addition was restricted to 25% by the Learned CITA and both assessee as well as the revenue had accepted the same. We find that no ground was raised by the revenue in their appeal. Accordingly, the arguments of the counsels on this issue is ignored and not adjudicated in this order in the absence of ground to this effect. 3. The first ground to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the Learned CITA is justified in deleting the addition made on account of bogus creditors of Rs. 70,234/- when no details were produced by the assessee before the Learned AO. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....spect of discrepancies in opening balance of sundry creditors, if any. He further argued that the Learned AO had accepted the gross profit declared by the assessee in the revised return filed pursuant to survey and when trading results are accepted, where is the question of making any separate addition towards unverifiable creditors. 3.3. We have heard the rival submissions. We find lot of force in the arguments of the Learned AR in respect of this addition that when the trading results are accepted by the Learned AO based on revised return filed by the assessee, there is no scope for disputing the veracity of the trade creditors as admittedly the trade creditors had emanated only out of purchases made by the assessee. Moreover, we find ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the first time to the Learned AO and called for a remand report. The Learned AO in remand proceedings did not accede to the plea of the asssessee that the subject mentioned payments are only turnover discount but not commission, but however, accepted that payments in excess of Rs. 2,500/- alone would be subjected to disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) read with section 194H of the Act which was worked out at Rs. 5,29,539/- . The Learned CITA held that the payments are made by a principal to its agent and not principal to principal. He also gave a categorical finding that the subjectmentioned payments are only discount paid to purchasers of recharge coupons and the nomenclature in the books of accounts would not be the determining factor for framing....