M/S ARVIND KUMAR AGRAWAL,HUF,RAIPUR vs. I.T.O.-2, BHILAI(CG)

ITA 52/BIL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Raipur15 October 2018AY 2008-096 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal allowed the disallowance of parboiling charges and the addition for suppressed sale of husk, citing previous judgments and lack of evidence. It partly allowed the appeal regarding the valuation of closing stock of gunny bags, allowing some depreciation but not the full claim. The addition for suppression of rice sale value was deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an HUF running a rice mill, filed its return of income which was significantly enhanced by the Assessing Officer (AO) due to various additions. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), who partly allowed the appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of parboiling charges and addition for suppressed sale of husk were justified. Whether the valuation of closing stock of gunny bags and suppression of rice sale value were correctly treated by the lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH: RAIPUR

Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE

For Appellant: Shri G.S Agarwal, CA
For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, DR
Hearing: 09.08.2018Pronounced: 15.10.2018

PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the CIIT(A)-II, Raipur, dated 05.01.2015 for the A.Y. 2008-09. 2. The grounds of appeal are as under:

“1. That under the facts the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 4,80,000/- made by the Ld. A.O on account of payment of parboiling changes paid to M/s Dauji Farms Pvt Ltd. without having any material on record and by rejecting the explanation.

Prayed that the expenses of Rs. 4,48,000/- be allowed.

2

2.

That under the facts the Ld. CIT(A) further erred in maintaining addition of Rs. 1,90,684/- made by the Ld. A.O for difference in valuation of closing stock of “Bardana” i.e. Gunny Bags rejecting th

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →