TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (10) TMI 661
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... raised by the assessee read as under:- "1. Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,15,750/- made by the AO u/s. 68 on account of loan received by the appellant from Sunil Kumar Prashan Kumar HUF & interest thereon. The addition made by AO and sustained by Ld. CIT(A) is not justified. 2. Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance out of vehicles, travelling and telephone expenses to the extent of 10% of the claim out of the disallowance of 20% made by the AO. The disallowance sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified. 3. Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 61,29,546/- made by the AO rejecting the book results and applying GP rate of 9.30% in place of the disclosed GP rate of 7.03%. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....also paid thereon. Not only this, the amount has been repaid to the said party during the same year. The disallowance was made only on the ground that the party has not responded to the notice served under Section 133(6) of the Act. The learned Counsel relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation P. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) for the proposition that where the notice remained unserved, but, however, the Assessing Officer has not made any further efforts to make enquiry, an adverse inference cannot be derived automatically. It was contended that the case of assessee is on a much higher pedestal having regard to the fact that notice under Section 133(6) was served but not responded. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eard the facts and the circumstances of the case, we have no hesitation to hold that the assessee has sufficiently discharged the onus which lay upon it in terms of Section 68 of the Act. In this view of the matter, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) on this point and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition on this score. 3. Consequently, Ground No. 1 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 4. Ground No. 2 concerns ad-hoc disallowance out of vehicle, travelling and telephone expenses partly sustained by the CIT(A). The assessee could not, in any manner, controvert the view taken by the CIT(A). The action of the CIT(A) being reasonable on the facts of the case and in the absence of any serious rebuttal thereof, we decli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by the assessee; (ii) The assessee entered into contract for sale of blankets with Raymond Ltd. for which purchase order was obtained (page Nos. 52 & 53 of the paper-book). Blankets were subsequently imported from China and supplied to Raymond. The purchase price happened to be more than the selling price contract with the customer resulting in loss of Rs. 10.28 lakhs; (iii) In trading of soap noodles, loss of Rs. 13.57 lakhs was incurred for which detailed working is placed at page no. 55 of the paper-book; (iv) Custom duty on purchase of wire-netting was 10% higher in FY 2011-12 which further increased to 12.36% in the year under consideration. The value of imported wire-netting being substantial, the additio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... essentially submitted that the assessee did not fully explain the fall in GP and the burden to substantiate the trading results were not discharged by the assessee. 7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions on the issue. On careful appraisal of the submissions and the corroborating evidences, we observe that the quantitative details of the items traded by the assessee were furnished before the Assessing Officer. No enquiry has been made with the customers. No discrepancy in the valuation of closing stock was pointed out by the Assessing Officer or by the CIT(A) either. Thus, by implication, the transactions in the trading account were without much dispute. The assessee has attempted to explain the fall in GP by citing specif....