No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JODHPUR BENCH (SMC
Before: SHRI R.C.SHARMA
PER R.C. SHARMA, A.M.
This is the appeal filed by the assessee against the
order of Ld. CIT(A)-1, Jodhpur dated 27/08/2018 for the
assessment year 2011-12, in the matter of order passed U/s
143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act).
In this appeal the assessee is aggrieved for trading of
addition of Rs. 5,80,245/- upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) out of
total addition of Rs. 8,12,343/- made by the Assessing
Officer.
2 ITA 512/Jodh/2018 Rajesh Vishnoi Vs ACIT
The assesee is also aggrieved for upholding
disallowance of Rs. 38,103/-out of total disallowance of Rs.
50,804/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of
telephone, conveyance and depreciation on car expenses etc.
I have considered the rival contentions and carefully gone through
the orders of the authorities below. Facts in brief are that the assessee
is engaged in manufactory of handicraft items, trading of wood, SS Flat
etc. For the year under consideration the assessee e-filed the return of
income for A.Y. 2011-12 on 29.09.2011 declaring total income at Rs.
24,48,743/-. Further, the appellant filed revised return on 21.11.2012
declaring total income of Rs. 20,59,719/-. The case was selected for
scrutiny under CASS and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on
07.09.2013. Appellant is engaged in the manufacturing of handicraft
items, trading of wood, SS flat etc. also, operates bus through his
proprietary concerns namely M/s Shisham Udyog and M/s Saraswati
Udyog. He is also in receipt of salary, short term capital gain and
interest. After hearing the assessee, the Assessing Officer completed the
assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act on 04.02.2014 determining the total
income at Rs. 29,22,865/- making various additions/disallowances. The
Assessing Officer noticed that the GP rate of 1.06% declared in the year
under consideration in respect of handicraft business was lower as
compared to GP rate of 7.21% declared in the immediate preceding
3 ITA 512/Jodh/2018 Rajesh Vishnoi Vs ACIT
year. The A.O. applied G.P. rate of 7% and made addition of Rs.
8,12,343/- in respect of handicraft business. By the impugned order, the
ld. CIT(A) has upheld the addition of Rs. 5,80,245/- against which the
assessee is in further appeal before the ITAT.
From the record I found that the loss was genuinely caused in
wooden Handicrafts business because of insect biting which cannot be
thrusted on supplier of the woods because insect biting occurs at the
premises of the assessee himself after receipt of the woods. I found that
the A.O. has rejected assessee’s claim for loss due to insect biting on
the plea that the assessee dealing in Sesame wood which is a very hard
wood and cannot be eaten away by the insects. To controvert this
observation of the A.O., the assessee has produced samples of Sesame
wood during the assessment proceedings and showed that insect biting
is also affected on Sesame wood. I also found that the A.O. has
accepted the figure of closing stock and there was no suppression of
any sales, accordingly, I do not find any justification for applying the
G.P. rate of 7% by rejecting claim of loss of handicraft/wood division.
Accordingly, I direct the A.O. to delete the addition so made by the A.O.
and upheld by the ld. CIT(A).
The A.O. also made lumpsum disallowance of various expenses
and depreciation amounting to Rs. 50,804/-. By the impugned order, the
4 ITA 512/Jodh/2018 Rajesh Vishnoi Vs ACIT
ld. CIT(A) has restricted the addition to the extent of Rs. 38,103/-.
These disallowances are with regard to conveyance expenses, telephone
expenses and depreciation on car. I have considered rival contentions
and found that assessee had furnished full details of expenses so
incurred before the AO. I also found that the genuineness of the
expenses so claimed was not doubted by the A.O.. Furthermore, the
total expenses claimed of Rs. 3,04,825/- in relevant AY is lower than
total expenses claimed of Rs. 3,56,428/- in AY 2020-11 despite increase
in volume of the business, the total expense had been reduced. Keeping
in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, I restrict the
disallowance to the extent of Rs. 5,000/-.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part.
Order pronounced in the open court on 20th March, 2020.
Sd/- [R.C. SHARMA] Accountant Member Dated : 20/03/2020 *Ranjan Copy to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. The DR 6. Guard File (ITA No. 512/Jodh/2018) Assistant Registrar Jodhpur Bench