RAJKUMAR GUPTA PROP. M/S. JAI BHARAT TRADING COMPANY,ALWAR vs. ITO, ALWAR

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR Jh Hkkxpan] ys[kk lnL;] ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1038/JP/2016 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13 cuke Rajkumar Gupta, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Pro.p- M/s jai Bharat Trading Ward 2(2), company, Alwar. Alwar. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ACCPG 4162 B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri R.A. Verma (Addl.CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 28/02/2017 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 28/02/2017 vkns'k@ ORDER

PER: BHAGCHAND, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 28/09/2016 passed by the ld CIT(A), Alwar for the A.Y. 2012-13, wherein the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned ITO was wrong and unjustified in rejecting the books of accounts U/s 145(3) of the IT Act and thereby making a trading addition of Rs. 1,27,893/- and the learned CIT (Appeal) was also wrong and

ITA 1038/JP/2014_ 2 Rajkumar Gupta Vs ITO

unjustified in confirming the same. The learned ITO and the learned CIT (Appeal) both are wrong in saying that stock register was not produced.

After hearing the ld. Sr. DR, the appeal is being decided.

account and confirming the addition of Rs. 1,27,893/- made by the

Assessing Officer.

Officer by holding as under:-

ITA 1038/JP/2014_ 3 Rajkumar Gupta Vs ITO

“5.3. I have gone through the assessment order as well as submissions made by the appellant and find that the A.O has rejected the books of accounts under section 145(3) of the Act citing various reasons as is mentioned in para 4.1 above.

The appellant has claimed in the submission that stock register was produced before the A.O However, on perusal of the assessment records, it is evidently clear from the note sheets that the assessee did not produce the stock register and that fact is mentioned in the note sheet dated 12/01/2015. Therefore, the appellant’s contention is not factually correct from the assessment record. Further, the A.O has clearly recorded in the note sheet that direct expenditure were not fully vouched hence could not be verified. Also the A.O had recorded that overhead charges were not included in the valuation of the stocks.

In view of the foregone, in my considered view, the A.O is justified in rejecting the books of accounts and making the trading additions to the tune of Rs. 1,27,893/- taking the average of last 2 years gross profit rate. Accordingly, the addition is sustained and the appellant’s ground of appeal is dismissed.

ITA 1038/JP/2014_ 4 Rajkumar Gupta Vs ITO

find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) wherein he has sustained

the rejection of books of account and addition made by the Assessing

Officer on account of non production of stock register by saying that the

appellant’s contention is not factually correct from the assessment

record. The ld. CIT(A) has held that the Assessing Officer has clearly

recorded in the notesheet that direct expenditure were not fully vouched

hence could not be verified. He had also recorded that overhead charges

were not included in the valuation of the stocks. Accordingly this ground

of appeal by the assessee is hereby rejected.

50,000/- out of various expenses. The ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the

addition made by the Assessing Officer by holding as under:-

“6.3 I have gone through the assessment order as well as submissions made by the appellant and find that the trading additions were made on the gross profit. Therefore, addition on account of expenditures other than trading expenses is justifiable. The above addition @ 5% is made on the basis of possible personal usage of telephone and vehicle and other sundry expenditures and on the fact that not all expenditure are fully vouched. The A.O has recorded

ITA 1038/JP/2014_ 5 Rajkumar Gupta Vs ITO

that no log book for vehicle usage are maintained. The assessee is also not maintaining call registers. It will not be out of context here to mention that in order to avail any expenditure under section 37 of the Act, the primary onus lies on the assessee to prove that such expenditures are incurred or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. In absence of complete details, the A.O is very reasonable to disallow only Rs.50,000/- out of expenditures claimed at Rs. 12,87,074/- of the expenses claimed. Accordingly, the Addition of Rs.50,000/- is sustained and appellant’s ground of appeal on the issue is dismissed.”

material whatever reported by the ld. CIT(A) in his order, therefore in

absence of any material against the findings of the ld. CIT(A), I have no

alternate but to concur with the findings of the ld. CIT(A), therefore, I

uphold the order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue. Accordingly, this ground

of assessee’s appeal is dismissed.

The 3rd ground of appeal is against confirming the addition of Rs. 8.

56,600/- on account of low household expenses. The ld. CIT(A) has

confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer by holding that the

Assessing Officer had estimated the addition on account of low

ITA 1038/JP/2014_ 6 Rajkumar Gupta Vs ITO

household expenses but he has not made any addition on this account in

view of trading additions already made, therefore, he found no reason to

interfere on this account as not additions have been made.

not made any addition on this account, due to size of family, standard of

living, cost of living. The ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition by holding

that the Assessing Officer had estimated the addition on account of low

household expenses but he has not made any addition on this account in

view of trading additions already made. Therefore, I find no any contrary

material whatever reported by the ld. CIT(A) in his order, therefore in

absence of any material against the finding of the ld. CIT(A), I have

alternate but to concur with the finding of the ld. CIT(A), accordingly,

this ground of assessee’s appeal is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 28/02/2017.

Sd/- ¼Hkkxpan½ (BHAGCHAND) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 28th February, 2017

*Ranjan

ITA 1038/JP/2014_ 7 Rajkumar Gupta Vs ITO आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Shri Rajkumar Gupta, Alwar. 1. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ITO, Ward 2(2), Alwar. 2. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT 3. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The CIT(A) 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 1038/JP/2016) 6. vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत