2019 (3) TMI 382

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ia that : "1. Whether in the fact and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 6,11,59,512/- made by the AO on account of bogus 'Sales Return' after grossly ignoring the fact that assessee has failed to prove the genuineness of its claim? 2. Whether in the fact and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of sales tax paid on 'Sales Return' by the AO by ignoring the fact that the same could be allowed for the year in which sale has been actually made/booked by the assessee? 3. Whether in the fact and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the foreign exchange loss of Rs. 66,56,166/- by6 entire....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y the treating the sum as notional loss. 4. Assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing the appeal who has deleted addition by partly allowing the appeal. Feeling aggrieved the revenue has come up before the Tribunal. 5. Ground no. 1 It is the case of the assessee that sales executives in order to earn the incentives have shown fictitious sales which came to the notice of the company when receivables has piled up and the assessee has not received any payment. Alleged fictitious sales were noticed for the period of April, 2004 to July 2004. Then the assessee has recovered goods worth Rs. 6,11,59,512/- lying with the transporters. 6. Undisputedly auditors have not made any comment on the appropriateness o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....roved before the CIT(A) that out of total quantity of the sale return during the year under assessment approximately 40.3% quantity of such stock was resold and approximately 22.4% of quantity was included in the closing stock being sellable goods in the subsequent years and remaining quantity of approximately 37.3% was claimed as expired / damaged stock which was not included while computing the value of the closing stock as on 31st March, 2005. 9. So when sale returns has been duly proved with physical stock available with the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly decided the issue in favour of the assessee that the same cannot be added as unexplained income. So we find no illegality or perversity on the findings of facts returned by Ld....