2017 (3) TMI 1958

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f the first appellate authority that the books have not been rejected under Section 145 of the Act in the present case and in absence of such rejection, the book results cannot be substituted? 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was justified in rejecting the books of appellant u/s 145 of the Act and restoring the addition of Rs. 6,00,000/- on account of alleged excess drayage in the process of manufacturing of mustard oil by crushing of mustered oil seeks and whether this finding is perverse? 3. Counsel for the appellant Mr. Kasliwal contended that the CIT(A) while considering the case of the appellant-assessee has observed as under:- "I have gone through the assessment order and....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ks of account are maintained and not defect in books of account were pointed out and unless and until the book results are rejected u/s 145(2) of the I.T. Act resort to disallowing the driage loss cannot be made. Neither maintenance of stock register has been denied for any specific defect in maintenance of books of accounts, has been brought on record. A reading of last order shows that nowhere the Assessing officer have found any defect in books of a/c of the appellant, therefore, addition on a/c driage of Rs. 10,21,020/- cannot be sustained without first rejecting the books of a/c which the AO has not done. In view of this, the addition of Rs.10,21,020/- is hereby deleted. The next ground of appeal relates to additions on accoun....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... on higher side. Therefore, we modify both the order of lower authorities and restrict the addition to Rs. 6,00,000/-. Thus, the assessee will get adhoc relief of Rs. 4,21,020/- from the order of the AO. This ground is partly allowed in favour of the Department. 6. The assessee- firm received a sum of Rs. 6,27,686/- on account of insurance receipt against which the payment to the extent of Rs. 7,76,950/- on account of payment of insurance premium as well as loss suffered while goods remained in transit has been claimed, but the AO has not allowed the claim. So, he made the addition of Rs. 6,69,784/-. But in first appeal, the CIT(A) has restricted the said addition to Rs. 2,38,635/- by observing that the said amount was not utilized....