TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (12) TMI 388
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r Difference 1. Gini Silk 88941 88941 2. PARASRAM JAIKISHAN 73019 73019 Total 1,61,960 4. In the Order of Assessment, it has been mentioned by the AO that despite opportunities given to the assessee for filing confirmation of the creditors, the assessee did not file any confirmation and therefore the AO made an addition of a sum of Rs.1,61,960/- under section 68 of the Act. The CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO. 5. Before the CIT(A), the assessee specifically pointed out as follows: "However I wish to bring to your kind notice that above addition is made by the A.O merely because of non availability of balance confirmation statement from above referred creditors. But the A.O has not considered the corroborative evidences like payments made to above referred creditors by way of cheques etc. Party confirmations received from above referred parties are furnished to you vide our letter dated 19/03/2018. We had furnished the Xerox copies of few bills and bank statement of SBI to support the purchases and payments vide our letter dated16/11/2018. Their GST numbers may be treated as their ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sued Circular No.12/2016 dated 30.05.2016 and in para 4 of the said Circular, the CBDT has clearly laid down that deduction should be allowed if a debt is written off as irrecoverable in the books of accounts of the assessee in the relevant previous year. In the light of the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and CBDT Circular, I am of the view that the disallowance of deduction on account of bad debt written off is unsustainable and the same is directed to be allowed as deduction. 11. The third issue that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the Revenue authorities were justified in disallowing a sum of Rs.1,33,000/- by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. In so far as the aforesaid disallowance is concerned, it is noticed that the AO noticed from the ledger account of sales promotion expenses that a sum of Rs.1,33,000/- was paid to hotels as per the following details: Date Name of the payee Amount 06/09/2012 Naveen Hotel Rs.20,000/- 17/09/2012 Naveen Hotel Rs.80,000/- 13/02/2013 The Grand Rs.33,000/- Total Rs.1,33,000/- 12. According to the AO, since the assessee did not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....consideration is as to whether the Revenue authorities were justified in adding a sum of Rs.6,31,961/- which was the total income of KAS Kothari, HUF, for Assessment Year 2013-14 to the total income of the assessee. On this issue, the parties agreed that in Assessment Year 2011-12, similar issue arose for consideration in assessee's own case for Assessment Year 2011-12 and this Tribunal in ITA No.201/Bang/2017 set aside the issue to the AO for consideration afresh with the following observations: "5. Ground No.3 is in respect of addition of HUF income in the hands of assessee. 5.1. Ld.AR submitted that assessee carries on proprietary business and also has similar business in status of S.Kothari HUF. Ld.AO computed profits earned by HUF in the hands of assessee holding it to be one and the same business. Ld.AR submitted that, HUF is also carrying on same business as Trader in textiles at Mumbai. Ld.AO made addition to the extent of profit earned by HUF in the hands of assessee as both are managed by assessee. 5.2. Ld.DR on the other hand submitted that both proprietary as well as HUF concerns have common address at Hubli and assessee created an impression that HUF ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der: Sl. No. Payee Amount @ rate 1. Rajendra Jain Rs.2,41,600/- 1@ 2. Sanjay Jain Rs.1,19,800/- 1@ 3. Poonamchand Prajapat Rs.1,01,432/- 0.5% 4. Suresh Kumar Prajapat Rs.86,300/- 0.5% The persons at Sl. No. 3 and 4 are employees of the assessee to whom sales commission was paid at the rate of 0.5% and the persons at sl. No. 1 and 2 were commission agents to whom sales commission was paid at the rate of 1%. The assessee was asked why for the same nature of work, paid at different rates. The AR could not produce any evidence/valid reason for paying sales commission at different rates. Also he could not explain the circumstances under which he was compelled to pay commission at higher rates. In absence of proper explanation, I held that the sales commission paid to the payees at SI No. 1. & 2 are excessive and should have been given at the rate of 0.5% instead of at the 1%. Therefore, I disallow the excessive 0.5% the sales commission paid to the payees at Sl No. l & 2 which comes to Rs. 2,30,700/- and added it to the income of the assessee." 17. The First Appellate Authority confirmed the order of the AO. After c....