TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 1604
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Act dated 27.03.2015 for the Asst Year 2012-13. 2. The first issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 33,68,000/- made by the ld. AO towards undisclosed investment in house property , in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The brief facts of this issue is that the assessee is an individual and proprietor of Kalpana Service Station engaged in the business of retail outlet of MS & HSD, reseller of lubricants etc. The assessee is also having income from herbal business and income from railway/air e-ticket business and income from other sources. During the year under appeal the assessee also had income from short term capital gain. In the course of assessment ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... this land before 37 years and he had carried on the construction thereon long back. He observed that in respect of old properties the same cannot be taxed based on market value of the property. He further observed that even if the subject mentioned property which was purchased long back is brought into the balance sheet of the proprietary concern of the assessee, the same would only go to correspondingly increase the capital account of the assessee. He observed that this house property was not part of the business and hence there is no need to show the same in the balance sheet of the proprietary concern of the assessee. Accordingly, he deleted the addition made in the sum of Rs. 33,68,000/-. Aggrieved the revenue is in appeal before us on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The next ground to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in restricting addition towards closing stock to Rs. 87,915/- as against 8,79,156/-, in the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The brief facts of this issue is that the ld. AO on perusal of the stock statement as on 31.03.2012 submitted by the assessee to United Bank of India, City Centre Branch, Kolkata and when compared with that value shown in the books of accounts, he noticed as under: Based on this, the ld. AO observed that the assessee had shown more closing stock in the stock statement submitted to the bank on 31.03.2012 when compared to the value shown in the balance sheet. The assessee replied that the stock statement is prepared....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee that the closing stock submitted to the bank was without considering the evaporation loss, whereas the closing stock submitted in the balance sheet is after considering evaporation loss. With regard to observations made by the ld. AO that loss should not be claimed on percentage basis rather it should be actual, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that the ld. AO had not produced any material on record as how the losses were claimed on percentage basis and how they were not actual. Accordingly, he concluded that the evaporation loss and such other normal loss is to be allowed to the assessee. He observed that the assessee has made total claim as under: Particulars sales Lts Loss in Lts % of Loss on sale MS Ordinary 5,78,122.00 6....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 7. We have heard the rival submissions. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) had rightly appreciated the fact that the stock statement submitted to the bank did not take into account the evaporation loss and handling loss of fuel. Due to this, naturally value of closing stock shown to the bank would always be higher when compared to that in the balance sheet. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) had observed that the assessee had claimed evaporation loss in excess in case of HSD premium at 4.34% and in case of MSordinary at 1.03% and 1.07%. Based on this, he restricted the loss to 90% of 8,79,156/- and accordingly, disallowed 10% of loss thereon and sustained the addition of Rs. 87,915/-. We find that the assessee is not in appeal before us against this ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eleted the disallowance. Aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal before us on the following ground: 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)-Durgapur has erred in deleting addition of Rs. 1,87,784/- claimed to be incurred on advertising and publicity expenditure when in the case of petroleum products advertisement and publicity expenditure is looked after by organization (PSU) whose products the assessee is selling and such expenditure has not been found to be incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. 10. We have heard the rival submissions. We find that the expenses incurred and giving of various gifts to customers have not been proved by the assessee with supporting documents. In petrol pump....