TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (7) TMI 556
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....operties given in para 2.18 of the Agreement, the AO inferred that 27.10 acres of land was sold for Rs.1.67 core and the assessee's share of 25 Acres was worth Rs.1.54 crore. On being called upon to state the position, the assessee submitted that the land pertained to Adlers Bio Energy Ltd., which was sold through the shares of Adlers. Not convinced, the AO presumed cost of acquisition of such rights at Rs.1.00 lakh as on 01-04-1981. With the relevant indexation, he worked out the indexed cost of acquisition at Rs.7.11 lakh and the resultant capital gain of Rs.1,46,94,904/-. This amount was added to the total income of the assessee, which got deleted in the first appeal. Aggrieved thereby, the Revenue has come up in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and gone through the relevant material on record. From narration of the above factual panorama above, it is seen that the AO inferred the assessee to have sold his share of land for a sum of Rs.1.54 crore. The property in question belonged to Adlers Bio Energy Ltd., which was purchased by it during the F.Y. 2007-08. A change in ownership of Adlers took place with the transfer of shares. On perusal of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as actually purchased from some other parties at lower rates but recorded at higher purchase price in the books of account through bogus bills. In such circumstances, only the additional profit, which the assessee suppressed by recording bogus purchases at higher value instead of actual purchases at lower value, can be subjected to tax and not the whole amount of purchases as was done by the AO. Considering the entirety of facts and circumstances of the instant case, we are satisfied that the ld. CIT(A) was justified in computing such extra profit embedded in bogus purchase value at 15% and sustaining the addition pro tanto. We, therefore, uphold the impugned order on this issue. This ground fails. 7. Ground No.3 is against the deletion of addition on account of steel consumption. The AO observed that the assessee manufactured 2583 bullock carts during the year. Sale price of bullock cart was found to be ranging from Rs.26,000/- to Rs.37,900/-, with capacity of bullock cart varying from 3 MT to 3.5 MT. In the absence of the assessee maintaining any day-to-day record of steel consumption and production of finished goods and further observing that lesser capacity meant lesser cons....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sidered opinion, the verdict given by the ld. CIT(A), in the instant facts and circumstances of the case, is appropriate as against the ad hoc disallowance made by the AO. We, therefore, uphold the impugned order on this issue. This ground is not allowed. 11. Ground No.5 of the appeal is against the deletion of addition of Rs.20,27,068/- made by the AO on account of Vehicle expenses. The assessee claimed deduction towards Vehicle expense, vehicle insurance, interest on vehicle loan and depreciation totalling in all to Rs.20,27,068/-. On a specific requisition, the assessee could not produce log books of the cars etc. The AO, therefore, made the disallowance of the entire Vehicle expenses and depreciation. The ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition. 12. After considering the rival submissions and perusing the relevant material on record, we find it is an admitted position that the assessee did not maintain log book for the vehicles. In that view of the matter, personal use of vehicles cannot be ruled out. Considering the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that it would be just and fair if the disallowance on account of Vehicle expenses, vehicle insuranc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e produced necessary sale bills before the ld. CIT(A) to show that some of the bullock carts were sold without tyres. The difference in the quantity of tyres as worked out by the AO has been properly reconciled by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) except 18 tyres, for which the addition has been restricted in the first appeal. The ld. DR could not point out any infirmity in the figures recorded in the impugned order on this score. Similar is the position regarding tubes, axle wheels and axles for which the assessee properly explained the difference as calculated by the AO with necessary evidence. In view of the above discussion, we are satisfied that no exception can be taken to the view canvassed by the ld. CIT(A). This ground is not allowed. 17. Ground No.8 is against the deletion of addition of Rs.1,95,075/- towards depreciation on JCB Machine. The assessee claimed depreciation on JCB Machine amounting to Rs.1,95,075/-. The AO held that there was no use of JCB machine in the assessee's business and hence made disallowance, which came to be deleted in the first appeal. 18. After considering the rival submissions on record, it is evident that the reason for the AO to make t....