ORDER
S.R. Chauhan, J.M.
1. This appeal by Revenue for asst. yr. 1990-91 is against the order of CIT(A), Jodhpur dt. 21st Sept., 1994.
2. I have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the records.
3. Ground No. 1 disputes the deletion of addition of Rs. 4,800 made by AO on account of unexplained deposits in the RD a/c of assessee’s minor children. The learned Departmental Representative of Revenue has relied on the orders of the AO. As against this the learned authorized representative of assessee has relied on the order of CIT(A).
4. I have considered the rival contentions, the material on record as also the orders of AO and learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) has observed that the deposits made in the RD a/c of two children is just of Rs. 2,400 each i.e., of Rs. 200 p.m. He has also observed that it is customary to receive and give small gifts on ceremonial and other occasions and so there is no justification to reject assessee’s explanation. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I agree with the finding of learned CIT(A) in deleting the said addition. As such the deletion of addition by the learned CIT(A) is found to be quite justified and I accordingly decline to interfere with the same.
5. Ground No. 2 disputes the deletion of disallowance of Rs. 43,100 on account of interest-free advance given by the assessee. The learned Departmental Representative of Revenue has relied on order of AO contending that the assessee has paid huge amounts of interest to creditors, including relatives. As against this the learned authorized representative of assessee has relied on the order of learned CIT(A), contending that the accounts are very old and no interest was charged in the past also.
6. I have considered the rival contentions as also the relevant material on record. From the perusal of record I find that the learned CIT(A), while deleting the addition, has found that the AO has not correlated the interest-bearing loans with the interest-free advance. In the circumstances the learned CIT(A)’s action in deleting the said addition cannot be found fault with. I, therefore, decline to interfere with the same.
7. Ground No. 3 disputes the deletion of disallowance of loss of Rs. 74,700 in Gawar split account. The learned Departmental Representative of the Revenue has relied on the order of the learned AO contending that it was not actual loss suffered by assessee and so he rightly disallowed the loss. As against this the learned authorized representative of assessee has relied on orders of CIT(A) contending that the AO has not properly considered the facts of the case.
8. I have considered the rival contentions together with the facts of the case. From the perusal of record it is found that the assessee has purchased partly fire damaged split from India Gum Industries. The assessee’s plea has been that it was a bargain which consisted both sound stock and damaged stock and the assessee was hopeful of making profit after separation of sound stock and damaged stock; and that the assessee could not make profit because the damaged stock worked out to be in higher quantity. The AO has not controverted the assessee’s above statement/contentions with any supportive material or basis for disallowance of the loss. As such considering all the facts and circumstances of the case I find it to be not justified on the part of AO to disallow the said loss. In the circumstances the impugned order of learned CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance of loss is found to be quite proper and justified. I, therefore, decline to interfere with the same
9. Ground No. 4 disputes the deletion of addition of Rs. 40,421 made by the AO for suppression of profit in Tumba oil.
10. The learned Departmental Representative of the Revenue has relied on the order of AO who has made this addition on the basis of sale price of goods sold to two different parties at different rates. As against this, the learned authorized representative of assessee has contended that the AO has not properly appreciated the facts of the case. He has strongly relied on the order of CIT(A).
11. I have considered the rival contentions as also the relevant material on record. From the perusal of record it is revealed that the assessee has sold Tumba oil to one Madras party on 19th March, 1990, @ Rs. 1419.60 per qtl. and to one Jaipur party on 25th March, 1990, @ Rs……… (sic) per qtl. There is nothing on record to show that the assessee has deliberately charged lesser rate from Jaipur party. The learned CIT(A) has found that the AO has not gone into the contention of the appellant properly that two transactions were made on different dates and at different places. He has observed that the AO has applied uniform rate which cannot be stated as correct. As such, considering all the facts and circumstances of the case I find no fault with the impugned order of learned CIT(A) in deleting the addition and the same is found to be quite proper and justified. I, therefore, decline to interfere with the same.
12. Ground No. 5 disputes the deletion of addition of Rs. 15,638, made by AO on account of undervaluation of stock of Tumba oil. The learned Departmental Representative of Revenue has relied on order of learned AO. As against this the learned authorized representative of assessee has relied on the order of CIT(A).
13. I have considered the rival contentions as also the relevant material on record. From the perusal of record it is revealed that the addition has been made on the basis of same facts as discussed in ground No. 4 above. The AO has valued the stock at the sale price at which the goods were sold to Madras party on 19th March, 1990. The assessee has however valued the goods @ Rs. 1,200 per qtl. being the price as prevailing at the year end. The AO has not given any basis for this addition. Further he has not considered the fact that the market price on 25th March, 1990, was lesser. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A)’s action in deleting the addition is found to be quite proper and not faulty. I, therefore, decline to interfere with the same.
14. In the result this appeal of Revenue is dismissed.