TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (2) TMI 794
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... AO. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of hosiery items. It filed its return of income on 31st November, 2014 declaring NIL income. However, the assessee has paid tax u/s 115JB of the I.T. Act on Rs. 10,619/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed from the profit and loss account that the assessee has debited the following expenses :- Head of the exp. Total exp. claimed by the assessee Bills and vouchers produced for the expenses Bills & vouchers not produced Difference of col. (2-3) 1 2 3 4 5 Advertisement Rs. 68,756/- Rs. 68,756/- Rs. 68,756/- General expenses Rs. 3,79....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere has been no change at all in this regard. The appellant has maintained regular books of accounts in the course of its business activities which are correct and complete in all respects, and barring this disallowance, the same have been accepted after thorough examination by the Ld. Assessing Officer. If we go by the judgment of the authorities below, it would clearly imply that they have considered total expenses of Rs. 1,76,842/- under seven different heads as reasonable against gross revenue receipts (business operations) of Rs. 1,98,05,868/-. Such a finding of fact is certainly not acceptable under any circumstances and not tantamount to dispensation of justice. 6. He further submitted that ever since the appellant started submitt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sive or unjustified under any circumstances. Referring to the case of the Tribunal in the case of the sister concern namely Nagesh Knitwears Pvt. Ltd. he submitted that the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal for the assessment year 2012-13 vide order dated 20th September, 2019 almost on identical circumstances has deleted the disallowance made by the AO and upheld by the Ld. CIT(A). He accordingly , submitted that the addition so made by the AO and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) should be deleted. 9. Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the AO and Ld. CIT(A). 10. I have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the AO and Ld. CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... other additions have been made by the AO barring this disallowance. From the details filed by the assessee, I find that no addition or disallowance out of expenses under this head has ever been made in any of the assessment years by the AO. I find the assessment order for the assessment year 2013-14 was framed u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act and the AO has accepted expenses of Rs. 27,29,602/- on the total revenue receipts of Rs. 3,38,59,706/- which is 8.06% of the expenses. For the impugned assessment year, the total expenses so claimed comes to Rs. 9,28,094/- on a total revenue receipts of Rs. 1,98,05,868/- which comes to 4.66% of the total expenses. I, therefore, find merit in the arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee the expenses so ....