THE INCOME TAX OFFICER Vs. BHARAT PLASTO CHEM (P) LTD.
LAWS(IT)-2014-7-44
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on July 24,2014

The Income Tax Officer Appellant
VERSUS
Bharat Plasto Chem (P) Ltd. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Sushma Chowla, Member (J) - (1.) THE appeal filed by the Revenue is against the order of the Commissioner of Income -tax (Appeals), Patiala dated 17.09.2012 relating to assessment year 2009 -10 against the order passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). The assessee has filed Cross Objections against the appeals filed by the Revenue.
(2.) THE Revenue in ITA No. 1248/Chd/2012 has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to work out the peak balance of credits and to give the credit of surrendered income of Rs. 45 Lacs after making total addition even' though the AO had made the addition of Rs. 71,94,0007 -, after allowing the benefit of surrendered amount, while adding Rs. 1,16,94,000/ -, being unexplained credits. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in directing the AO to give the credit of surrendered income of Rs. 45 Lacs while discussing the addition of Rs. 23,98,2757 -made by the AO on account of suppression of gross profit, even when the AO had already allowed the same while making the disallowance on account of credits being unexplained. It is prayed that the order of Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer restored.
(3.) THE appellant craves leave to add or amend any grounds of appeal before the appeal is heard and finally disposed of. 3. The assessee in the C.O. No. 18/Chd/2013 has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the books of account have been rightly rejected by the A.O. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) have further erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 23,98,275 on account of alleged suppression of gross profit. 3. That the Ld, CIT(A) have erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 14,30,000/ - on account of alleged peak of the credit whereas it was not a credit but only the payments made against the purchases. 4. Without prejudice to above the Ld. CIT(A) have further erred in not allowing the benefit of telescoping both the additions in ground no. 2 & 3.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.