2021 (5) TMI 340

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... account of difference in the custom duty ignoring the submissions of the appellant. 2. The appellant had filed all the evidence explaining the difference in the purchases by way of confirmation from the foreign parties and the CIT(A) without giving any finding on the same and without making a reference of the AO for verification erred in upholding the aforesaid disallowance. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance on the grounds which were irrelevant for deciding the issue. 4. That in any case the addition upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) is against the law and facts of the case. 5. That the Appellant craves leave for permission to add, amend or alter any ground of appeal at the time of h....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee made import of only Rs. 28,56,224/- as disclosed in the ITR. It was further stated that a Chinese Exporter raised two bills dt. 10/02/2015 & 15/02/2015 amounting to $ 20,980/- & $ 20,714/- respectively and dispatched the goods to India which were taken possession by the assessee after payment of custom duty. However it was found that the said goods were not according to the specification, pursuant to which the goods were returned and since no payment for the said goods were made, no entry was made in the purchase account, the letter from the Exporter was also adduced as additional evidence which was forwarded to the A.O. for the comments by the Ld. CIT(A). The A.O. opposed t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e admitted the additional evidence and held that the assessee firm was prevented by the reasonable cause in not responding to the notices and reminders of the A.O. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee had not been able to reconcile the difference in the import value as declared in its ITR and the data available on the CBEC tab and that the onus to reconcile the difference in figure of purchase through import remained woefully un-discharged. He also observed that the letter of the exporter adduced as additional evidence also did not explain the difference in the import value as per CBEC record. He therefore sustained the addition made by the A.O. As regards to the addition on account of difference in custom duty, the Ld. CIT(A) observed....