AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 1166
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... CIT(A)', in short] in Appeal No. 24/13-14 dated 08.07.2016 against the order of assessment passed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') dated 07.03.2013 by the Assessing Officer, JCIT, Range-19, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'ld. AO'). 2. As these are cross appeals therefore, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- "1. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) has erred in law while upholding arbitrary action of AO which is bad in law and against the tenets of natural justice. 2. Learned CIT(A) has miserably failed to substantiate pla....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mpass in it the addition of Rs. 53,08,650/- on extraordinary expenses, while ignoring the fact that former addition includes only trading expenses and did not cover non trading expenses. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the AO cannot rely on the same trading results that he had rejected earlier, while ignoring the fact that AO has not rejected the books as a whole and after removing discrepancy by making addition Rs. 1,08,51,505/-, has rightly made disallowance of Rs. 53,08,650/- on account of unreasonable expenses. 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in failing to appreciate that both the additions are not mutu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....auto parts 8. The assessee has made major purchases from the above sister concerns, which are manufacturing auto parts and hence, same was subjected to test by applying the provisions of section 40A(2) of the Act by the ld. AO. The return of income for AY 2010-11 was filed by the assessee firm on 26.09.2010 declaring total income of Rs. 4,36,31,310/-. During the financial year 2009-10, a survey action u/s 133A of the Act was carried out on the business premises of the assessee on 21.01.2010 wherein, pursuant to the discrepancy found by the survey team, a declaration of additional income was made by the assessee towards the following:- a. on account of excess cash found Rs. 1,15,16,100/- b. on account of excess stock found ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ear including additional income on account of excess stock 8.53% c. Difference (a-b) 1.39% d. Turnover of the assessee Rs. 78,06,83,867/- e. Differential gross profit (c * d) Rs. 1,08,51,505/- 10. The ld AO observed that the additional income offered by the assessee on account of excess stock of Rs. 1,75,98,542/- surrendered by the assessee during the course of survey was not shown by the assessee in the trading account by including it in the closing stock and that same was offered to income tax only as other income. Hence, the said surrender is not included in the closing stock as on 31.03.2010 at Rs. 4,50,31,614/-. The assessee furnished details of closing stock of Rs. 4,50,31,614/-. The ld. AO observed th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation in the instant case by examining the sample invoices. From the perusal of the orders of the lower authorities, it is found that the ld AO had made verification of 395 items wherein in respect of 110 items, the assessee had reported gross profit of more than 10%; in respect of 84 items, the assessee has reported gross profit of more than 11%; in respect of 41 items, the assessee had reported gross profit less than 6.9%. Though the assessee had stated that there was heavy competition prevailing in the last quarter of the financial year which led the assessee to sell the products at a much lesser rate when compared to other quarters which had evidently contributed to the reduction of gross profit during the last quarter, we find that the....