Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2019 (12) TMI 670

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al) erred in addition of Rs. 3,11,53,8761- on account of closing stock without appreciating the Revised Return of Income filed by the appellant and same is approved by the Ld. Assessing officer in the Remand report stating "appears to be correct and the same may now be accepted". 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (appeal) erred in making adhoc disallowance of Rs. 9,29,167/- without appreciating that expenses are incurred wholly and exclusively for business purpose and also failed to pin point any specific issues in the Expenses incurred." 3. The issue raised in ground No.1 is against the order of the ld.CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs. 3,11,53,876/- made by the AO on accoun....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o far as first ground of appeal challenging the action of the AO in not considering total income of Rs. 17,81,124/- as per second return of income filed by the appellant and computing income as per original return of income filed by the appellant is concerned, it is seen that the AO did so because total income as per original return of income was Rs. 3,29,61,000/- and the appellant did not provide any explanation during the course of assessment proceedings regarding the drastic reduction in total income as per the second return of income vis-a-vis the original return of income filed by the appellant. The second return of income filed by the appellant was not a valid revised return of income, therefore, the AO could not be faulted for starti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....am Barley 9810.45/ 9810.45 12000/ 11000 11,77,25,400/ 10,79,14,950 Pl No  91 Vashi Maize 6064/ 6064 13500/ 12100 8,18,64,000/ 733,74440 Trinity Godown, Gandhidham Barley 5047.50/ 5047.50 12000/ 11000 6,05,70,000/ 5,55,22,500 Himachal, Vashi Maize 2024.43/ 2024.43 11747/ 10650 2,37,82,000/ 2,15,60,221 Vaibhav Lakshmi, Vas hi Maize 2428.93/ 2428.93 13500/ 12100 3,27,90,600/ 2,93,90,093 Almighty, J Maize 1560/ 1560 13500/ 12100 2,10,60,000/ 1,88,76,000   Total 26935.32/ 26935.32   33,77,92,000/ 30,66,38,164 The AO has further stated as under:-  "In support of the above assessee has furnished closing stock certifica....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....et rate as claimed in the report), then it is not clear as to how the appellant adopted market value of the stock in its return of income that too by mistake. Therefore, explanation given by the appellant in this regard is not bona fide. Secondly, looking to the round figures adopted in valuation of closing stock as per cost price, the appellant was asked to produce supporting bills in respect of the values adopted as cost price of the purchases. Despite ample opportunity being given, the appellant could produce only one bill each in respect of all three rates adopted by the auditor. The appellant has also shown its inability to produce any more bills. Bill in respect of Barley produced by the appellant is dated 06/11/2010 and the same is f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... return and audited financial accounts, we are of the view that there is an inadvertent mistake on the part of the assessee while preparing the original return which was correctly rectified by way of revised return on 29/03/2013. Moreover, the AO, in the remand report dated 24/03/2017 which was called for during the course of appellate proceedings before the ld.CIT(A), submitted that after considering the details and evidences filed during the course of remand proceedings, the revised return of income Rs. 17,81,124/- appears to be correct. In view of these facts, we are inclined to set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the said addition made on account of closing stock. Thus, this ground of appeal raised by the as....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o Rs. 4,44,796/-. In view of the above, the disallowances out of various expenses may be restricted to the amounts as under:- Sr. No Heads of major expenses   Amount (Rs.) 1 Other expenses  (i) 20% of miscellaneous expenses of Rs. 7,16,256/- (ii)10% of labour expenses of Rs. 29,21,204/- (iii) 10% of gift to parties of Rs. 4,90,000   1,43,251 2,92,120 49,000 4,84,371 2 Travelling expenses 10% of the travelling expenses of Rs. 44,47,962   4,44,796   Total   9,29,167 10. After hearing the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material on record, the AO made the ad hoc disallowance of Rs. 2,40,39,080/- which was rest....