TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (4) TMI 25
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Officer u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act') dated 21/03/2013. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of transportation charges amounting to Rs. 8,82,059/- on the ground that the assessee has not furnished all supporting evidence. However, the assessee furnished all supporting evidence i.e. ledger, bills and relevant bank statement, before the ld. A.O. as well as ld. CIT(A) therefore, the aforesaid disallowance is not justified. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of share app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer observing the following: "4.2. I have considered the submission of the appellant's A.R in the light of the assessment order on the issue at hand. I find that Assessing Officer has discussed this issue on page 1 and 2 of the assessment order. According to the Assessing Officer since the notices u/s 133(6) were not served upon the parties and the appellant also could not establish the identity & genuineness of such parties. Therefore, the transaction undertaken by the appellant remains unsubstantiated. The appellant did not furnish any supporting evidence in support of its contentions during the appellate proceedings also. Thus, I have no option....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e. The ld. Counsel submitted that during the assessment stage the party called M/s Shakti Transport did not cooperate with the assessee,therefore, the assessee could not produce the said party before the ld. Assessing Officer, but assessee submitted the bill, ledger and relevant bank statement for the payment made. We note that there is merit in the submission of the ld. Counsel as the assessee produced bills, ledger copy, bank statement( transaction done through banking channel) to prove the bona fide of the transaction, therefore, we delete addition of Rs. 8,82,059/-. 9. Ground no. 2 raised by the assessee relates to the addition of share application money of Rs. 15,37,400/-. 10. Brief facts qua the issue are that the assessee compa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has relied on the submissions made before lower authorities. On the other hand, the ld. DR has primarily reiterated the stand taken by the Assessing Officer which we have already noted in our earlier para and the same is not being repeated for the sake of brevity. 14. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the ld CIT(A) and other materials available on record. The ld. Counsel submitted that the assessee raised share capital of Rs. 7,77,400/- and securities premium of Rs. 7,60,000/- during the F.Y. 2009-10. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....are that this ground is directed against the action of the AO, making addition of Rs. 18,08,689/- on account of undervaluation of stock. The extract of the assessment order in this regard is as follows: "The valuation of closing stock in respect of the item Iron Ore Fines was shown by the assessee as: Quantity Rate Value 1630.02 MT 550/- Rs. 24,86,961/- Multiplying quantity with rate the value of closing stock comes to Rs. 8,96,511/-. The value shown by the assessee is not correct. This wasalso noticed from the transportation bills of Sri Abhijit Chatterjee that iron ore fines of 2550 MT and 2509 MT were purchased from M/s DD International and M/s Satyam Iron & Steel Co. Pvt. Ltd. on 31.03 201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nted out by the Assessing Officer has not been explained in totality I deem it proper to estimate the rate @ Rs. 750/- MT for the closing stock of 1630.02MT shown by the appellant. Thus, the Assessing Officer is directed to consider the value of closing stock at Rs. 12,22,515/- (1630.03MT x Rs. 750MT) instead of Rs. 18,08,689/- adopted by him. Thus the appellant gets relief of Rs. 5,86,174/- (Rs. 18,08,689/- minus Rs. 12,22,515/-). This ground is decided accordingly." 18. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us, 19. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has relied on the submission made before the lower authorities. On the other hand, the ld. DR has primarily reiterated the stand taken by the Assessing Officer which we have already ....