2021 (3) TMI 656

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....raised the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal: 1) The order of the learned commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2) The learned commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 6,19,551/- made by the Assessing officer on the ground that there was understatement of sale; 3) The learned commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) ought to have considered the fact that both purchases and sales of petrol and diesel are verifiable and proper record was maintained and that, therefore, no addition can be made on this account; 4) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the additions of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 62,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....llowed the appeal." 3. Learned counsel representing assessee is fair enough in not pressing for the assessee's fourth to seventh substantive grounds keeping in mind the smallness of the sums involved therein with a rider that the same be treated as precedent(s). The Revenue is equally fair in not opposing to the above stated conditional concession. We thus decline the assessee's fourth to seventh substantive grounds in above terms. 4. Coming to the assessee's second substantive ground seeking to reverse both the lower authorities' action making addition of Rs. 6,19,551/- allegedly representing understatement of sales, the CIT(A)'s detailed discussion to this effect reads as under: "3. The appellant firm, a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....se receipts were not shown in the P & L A/c. and therefore added. iii) Interest payment made to M/s. Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. (NBFC) for the payment of interest on the vehicle loan availed of Rs. 58,254/- was disallowed u/s. 40(a)(ia) since TDS was not made. iv) As per the balance sheet, advances from the customers of Rs. 11,47,344/- were shown. Though the appellant was requested to submit the details and evidences for the advances and subsequent sale bills, if any, for adjustment of such advances, the appellant firm failed to submit the details/evidences and therefore the AO added the same to the income returned". 5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to rival pleadings against and in support of the impugned a....