TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 1075
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....01.2013. 2. First of all we noticed that this appeal is time barred for 51 days. The assesse filed an application for condonation of delay. After hearing the ld AR for the assesse and Ld DR for the Revenue in respect of such delay, we find a reasonable cause to condone the delay and accordingly we condone the delay. 3. Brief facts of the case qua the assessee are that the assessee filed its return of income for the relevant A.Y.2010-2011 on 23.09.2010 declaring total income of Rs. 94,740/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and the AO framed the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act, making various additions. 4. Aggrieved from the order of AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who has partly allowed the appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t has shown in the subsequent year could not be proved by any evidence inspite of giving so many opportunities. The ledger submitted during the appellate proceedings does not reveal whether the income has been shown in the subsequent year, or not, and what is the basis of the same. It is further to pointed out that the consistency of method of accounting should be followed by the appellant. Once the appellant admitted that the same were receivable it should have been shown as income in the hands of the appellant for this year itself only. In view of the above I agree that the addition made by the A.O. is correct and the appeal filed by the appellant on this issue is dismissed. 5. Not being satisfied with the order of ld. CIT(A), the asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of "Excess Income from Transport & Commission" being arrear of transport charges and commission which is extra, apart from appellant's earlier claim, as such an 'amount which has been already received and shown as income, cannot be again shown as receivable. Other grounds may be urged at the time of hearing. 6. Although in this appeal, the assessee has raised four grounds of appeal but at the time of hearing the solitary grievance of the assessee has been confined to addition of Rs. 4,14,247.60 treating as undisclosed receivable amount on account of transportation charges. 6.1 Ld. AR for the assessee submitted before us that the assessee under consideration is a Modified Ration Distributor and also deals in cement. Ld. AR for t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the above statement are [(Rs.3,76,174.00 + Rs. 1,47,222.00)-Rs.1,09,148.40=Rs.4,14,247.60] Explanation: (i) Rs. 3,76,174.00: Transportation charges already incurred, cannot be receivable. (ii) Rs. 1,47,222.00: Receipts shown in P/L A/c, already charged to tax, cannot be again treated as income. (iii) Rs. 1,09,148.40: Actual calculation made by Food & Supply Deptt. Govt. of WB on the prescribed rate on AAY Rice is 10,914.84 Qnt. X Rs. 10/-. The above chart clearly shows that the AO made addition of Rs. 3,76,174/- for the expenses already incurred on account of transportation. Besides, the AO also wrongly added arrear transport rebate for the period 2008-09 at Rs. 1,47,222/-. This arrear transport rebate of 2008-09 has alread....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iation, that is the assesse has already shown as income. (iii) AO forgot to add in his reconciliation Rs. 1,09,148.40 transport rebate reimbursable. Therefore, closing balance arrived at by the AO is wrong and not acceptable. 6.2. On the other hand, ld. DR for the revenue before us has primarily relied on the findings of authorities below, which we have already noted in our earlier para and is not being repeated for the sake of brevity. 6.3. Having heard the rival submissions, perused the material on record, we are of the view that there is merit in the submissions of the assesse, as the proposition canvassed by ld. AR for the assessee are supported by the facts narrated by him above. As Ld. AR for the assessee has pointed out that the tr....