TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (10) TMI 924
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he additions so made and partly confirmed being contrary to the provisions of law and facts of the Case and contrary to the submissions & evidences available on record hence, the same kindly be deleted in full. 2.2 The impugned addition seriously racks jurisdiction and hence, the same kindly be deleted in full. 3. Rs. 2,40,217/-: The Id. CIT further erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the disallowance made by the AO out of the expenditure incurred on transportation expenses though wrongly and mistakenly named as loss on sale of vehicle" Ignoring the submissions/clarification furnished before her. The disallowance so made being contrary to the provisions of law and facts of the case and contrary to the submissions & evidences available on record. Hence, the same kindly be deleted in full. 4. Rs. 90,600/-: The Id. CIT also erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in fully confirming the disallowances made by the AO out of the following expenses claimed by the assessee: S. No. Head of expenses Expenses claimed by the assessee Disallowed by the ld. AO 5.1 Telephone expenses Rs. 1,27,809/- 10% of total expenses claimed i.e. Rs. 90,6....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ison to the previous years. The ld AR has submitted that the assessee has duly explained the reasons for low yield for the year under consideration in comparison to the earlier years and since the difference is very negligible and in some cases less than .5%, therefore, the explanation of the assessee ought to have been accepted when no contrary fact was found by the A.O. He has further submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has restricted the addition to Rs. 3.00 lacs without any basis or justification, therefore, the ad hoc addition sustained by the ld. CIT(A) is not justified and the same may be deleted. Alternatively, the ld. AR has submitted that when the A.O. has not rejected the books of account of the assessee then no trading addition can be made on the basis of estimation. In support of his contention, he has relied on the following decisions: (i) CIT Vs Maharaja Shree Umaid Mills Ltd. 192 ITR 565 (Raj) (ii) Pr.CIT Vs Bhawani Silicate Industries (2015) 93 CCH 0419 (Raj). (iii) Prem Cables (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIY (1996) 54 TTJ 421 (JP) (iv) Malani Ramnivan Jagannath Vs ACIT (2009) 207 CTR 19 (Raj). Hence, the ld AR has submitted that the addition sustained by the ld. CIT(A) may b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... show cause notice after noticing discrepancies such as non maintenance of stock register, production registers, inward registers outward registers etc. but also considered the written submission of the appellant and had not rejected the books of account at all u/s 145(3). In a similar issue, The Hon'ble High Court, Rajasthan in the case of Malani Ramjivan Jagannath vs. ACIT 20T CTR (Raj) 19 held as under:- "In doing so, it had ignored all admitted facts in the face of which there about the sales and purchases, non maintenance of stock register lost its significance so far as arriving at GP rate is concerned." Further the Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur in the case of Ambika textile Industries vs. DCIT held that huge trading addition can't be made without pointing any defect in the books of accounts. Apart from this the Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur in the case of DCIT vs. Mewar Textile Mills Ltd. held that the AO had nowhere invoked the provisions of section 145(1) and if the provisions was not invoked then the estimate of profit would not possible in the eyes of law. Further, the AO made trading addition considering the yield ratio of similar business carrying out same job at s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... but due to clerical mistake, it is shown under wrong head. It was submitted that it is an expenditure incurred on transportation of the goods delivered at the doorsteps of the buyer, hence, this figure represents the delivery charges in the shape of diesel and other related expenses which were incurred on the trucks. The ld. CIT(A) did not find any merits in this explanation of the assessee when the assessee has not produced any documentary evidence or no such trucks were hired by the assessee either from the partners or any other party. 8. We have heard the ld AR as well as the ld DR and considered the relevant material on record. The ld. AR of the assessee has reiterated his contention as raised before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has considered this issue in para 9.2 as under: "9.2. I have considered the assessment order, appellant's submissions and documents on record. During the course of assessment proceedings, The AO taking cognizance of the fact that the assessee had sold vehicle during the year under consideration, therein leading to a resultant loss of Rs. 2,40,217/-, which was claimed by the assessee and the same was disallowed by the AO. During the course of a....