TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 325
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... adjudication. The decision in the said appeal will applicable to other appeals also. ITA No.131/Ahd/2024 for AY 2010-11 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) is against law, equity & justice. 2. The assessment passed by the Ld.AO is void & illegal as no addition made for the reason for which is reopened. 3.Assessment is void & illegal as no requisite sanction given u/s. 151 of the Act. 5. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding addition of commission income of Rs. 1,05,41,476/- 6. Your appellant craves liberty to add, amend alter or modify all or any grounds of appeal before final appeal. 3. The original return of income was filed on 09.10.2020 declaring total income of Rs. 3,68,480/-. The original return filed under section 139 of the Act was considered and filed u/s. 148 of the Income tax Act 1961. The original return was scrutinized but no addition was made to the total income of the assessee. The assessment was reopened by the Revenue u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961, based on the information received from investigation on 29.03.2017, after recording the reasons which was served to the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng to appear along with the books of account i.e sales purchase register, bills, ledger etc. On 29.09.2017 the statement of assessee Shri VinodkumarBabulalDugar was recorded on oath u/s. 131 of the Income-tax Act. From the statement of assessee the AO pointed out following facts. (1) Arihant Enterprise having branches at Ahmedabad in which trading of Sscrap and tobacco & 2) M/s. ArihantOrgnaization trading business at Ahmedabad trading in edible oil etc. on wholesale basis & 3)Gaurav Enterprises, Jaipur trading in Cattle feed. In answer to question no 7 assessee has stated that in ArihantEntperise he purchased goods like Tobacco product from local market of various cities Gujarat and the same was sold within Guajrat and outside the states like Rajasthan and Bihar. In answer to question no 8 when the assessee was asked to furnish details of goods delivered by him, he stated that transportation charges were borne by the customer. In answer to question no 9 when the assessee was asked names and addresses of all the parties from whom goods were purchased and sold in Arihant Enterprises, the assessee stated that he will supply the same within a 15 days' time. However, no suc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orry receipt and other evidences, the assessee was issued a combined show cause notice 21.11.2017 asking the assessee to explained as to why the books of accounts may not be rejected u/s. 145(3) of the Income-tax Act. The assessee submitted the combined reply dated 27.11.2017 and after taking cognizance of the same, the AO due to lack of correctness and completeness of books of accounts had rejectedthe book result, in view of the provisions of section 145(3) of the Act. The AO further failed to establish that the business shown by the assessee is genuine and the assessee is indulge in raising bogus bills and sales/purchases. The activities raising bogus bills in the proprietary firm Arihant Enterprises totalling to Rs. 84,33,18,101/- comprising of total sales of Rs. 43,39,38,544/- and purchase of Rs. 40,93,79,557/- as per ITR filed and Audit report. As the assessee could not demonstrate the proof of delivery of goods, genuineness of sales and purchase was not accepted by the AO and looking into the scale of billing done considered Rs. 1,05,41,476/- being 1.25% of sum of sales and purchases agreement to Rs. 84,33,18,101/- shown in ITR for AY 2010-11 and the audited accounts as net c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed and otherwise verifiable then rejecting is not justifiable. The Ld.AR submitted that rather view of Hon'ble Courts is that the absence of daily stock register by itself must not be a convincing ground for rejection of accounts, specially, in the absence of any positive material against the correctness of accounts. The Ld.AR submitted that in each and every case without considering the feasibility mere non maintenance of item-wise stock register would not justify rejection of accounts. If there is no detection of specific understatement of income then non-maintenance of item-wise stock or day to day stock register is not a conclusive proof of invocation of the provisions of section 145(3) of the Act. Maintenance of such record depends upon the nature of business carried out and that whether practically possible or physically feasible to maintain such intricate record. The Ld.AR further submitted that the assessee has filed the sales register and purchase register for AY 10-11 and the assessment order of Commercial Tax Officer for Arihant Enterprise, Ahmedabad. The Ld.AR further submitted that the quantification of commission is also not justified. As the assessee has not received....