TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (2) TMI 1269
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng relevant to the dispute is bad in law and uncalled for. 2. (b) That without prejudice to above, the appellant disputes the quantum of addition as highly excessive. 3. (a) That Ld. CIT (A) is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 77,658/- being the amount payable to the expartners of the firm without appreciating the correct facts of the present case, hence the findings of authorities below are bad in law and uncalled for. 3. (b) That without prejudice to above, the appellant disputes the quantum of addition as highly excessive. 4. That Ld. CIT (A) is not justified in confirming addition on account of remission of liabilities shown in the balance sheet to the extent of Rs. 1,50,600/- without appreciating the correct facts, hence the findings of authorities below are bad in law and uncalled for. 5. (a) That Ld. CIT (A) is not justified in confirming the disallowance of adjustment of carry forward unabsorbed depreciation at Rs. 3,46,659/- without appreciating the correct facts and thus the impugned order is bad in law and uncalled for. 5. (b) That without prejudice to above, the appellant dispute.' quantum of addit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f 4450.940 kgs of cloth have been sold by the assessee outside the books of account. The Assessing officer accordingly made the addition of Rs. 7,70,013/- @ Rs. 173/- per kg keeping in view the assessee's letter dated 30.4.2007 wherein the assessee had shown sale of 1790.650 kgs of cloth for Rs. 30,09,960/-. The Assessing officer provided an opportunity to assessee to furnish its explanation in this regard but there was no response from the assessee. Consequently, the Assessing officer made addition of Rs. 7,70,013/- to the total income of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee vide its letter dated 18.12.2012 requested the Ld. CIT(A) for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962. The assessee submitted that the figures mentioned in its letter dated 30.04.2007 was not correct figure of sales of cloth, however, the correct figure of sales of cloth during the year is 20223.730 kgs. The assessee also produced certain photocopies of the sale bills as under;- Bill No. Date Qty of cloth sold in kgs 093 27.09.2004 2705.000 kgs 102 8.10.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the appellant has not been able to justify as to how and why the sale bills were not produced. by him, to explain his contentions, during the course of assessment proceeding The appellant has not been able to justify as to what prevented him from producing these evidences for such a long time. The only other issues is whether the AO has made the order appealed against without giving sufficient opportunity to the appellant to adduce evidence relevant to any ground of appeal. From the facts on record it is clear that appellant was afforded sufficient opportunities to produce evidence. As per the assessment order, sufficient opportunity was provided to the appellant to file his explanation but the appellant failed to avail any of the opportunity. The appellant did not even reply to the specific show-cause notice issued by the AO. From the details as discussed above it is apparent that sufficient opportunities were provided to the appellant. The fact remains that inspite of repeated opportunities provided by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings the appellant failed to furnish the requisite details." 7. The Ld. CIT(A) concluded as under:- "If the fact....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(A) that admittedly the assessee vide its letter dated 30.4.2007 claimed that total sales of cloth during the year was at 15722.590 kgs. The assessee had purchased 27277 kgs of yarn out of which it produced 23886.86 kgs of cloth and sold cloth of 15722.590 kgs and declared 8435.823 kgs of cloth as its closing stock as on 31.3.2005. It is observed that before the CIT(A) the assessee had taken altogether a new plea that actual sales figures is 20223.73 kgs which appears to be an afterthought. In view of the assessee's letter dated 30.4.2007 addressed to the Assessing officer, we are of the view that the CIT(A) was fully justified in rejecting the ground raised by the assessee on merits. Accordingly, we uphold the order of CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs. 7,70,013/- made on account of suppression of sales of cloth. Consequently, we reject ground Nos. 1 and 2 of the appeal. 10. The relevant facts relating to ground No. 3 of the appeal are that as per the balance sheet, the assessee had shown an amount of Rs. 35,105/- and Rs. 42,553/- as being payable to its ex-partners namely Shri Harminderpal & Sons and Shri Rakesh Jain, respectively. The Assessing officer made the addition....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e the assessment for the assessment years 2004-05 and 2006-07 wherein the said balances were duly accepted without any objection. In that view of the matter we think it appropriate to set aside the order of CIT(A) on this issue and remand the matter to the Assessing officer with a direction to decide the issue afresh in accordance with law after affording due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. For statistical purposes, Ground No.3 of the appeal is allowed. 14. As regards ground No.4 of the appeal, the Assessing officer noted that out of the trading liabilities of Rs. 7,67,653/- the assessee failed to substantiate the liabilities to the extent of Rs. 3,50,600/-. The derails are as under:- i) M/s Jindal Singh Rs. 636/- ii) M.s Nice Grip Tools & Exports Rs. 3,44,966/- iii) M/s R.S. Sales Corpn Rs. 480/- iv) M/s Sokhal Calander Press Rs. 4,518/- Total Rs. 3,50,600/- The Assessing officer called for information u/s 133(6) from M/s Nice Grip Tools & Exports. As per their reply, there was nil balance and there was no amount payable to the assessee. However, the assessee submitted that out of total liability ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... It appears that the Ld. CIT(A) has not considered the above submissions of the assessee while passing the impugned order. The assessee has contended that the Assessing officer disallowed the amount of Rs. 1,50,600/- on account of cessation of trading liabilities ignoring the fact produced during the assessment proceedings that assessee itself has written off the balance amount of Rs. 1,44,966/- payable to M/s Nice Grip Tools & Exports in the assessment year 2006-07 and the assessment for which was finalized vide order dated 23.12.2008 without making any adverse inference in this regard. Taking into consideration the above contention of the assessee, we think it appropriate to set aside the findings of the CIT(A) on this issue and remand the matter to the Assessing officer with a direction to consider the above submissions of the assessee and decide the issue afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. 18. As regards ground No.6 of the appeal, the Assessing officer noted that the assessee had claimed unabsorbed brought forward depreciation. The Assessing office....