9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Restriction of addition on account of difference in stock. 2. Restriction of trading addition based on closing stock found during the survey. 3. Deletion of trading addition in respect of non-verifiable purchases. Detailed Analysis: 1. Restriction of Addition on Account of Difference in Stock: The first issue involves the Revenue's appeal against the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition of Rs. 22,77,364/- made by the AO to Rs. 2,42,338/- due to a difference in stock found during a survey. The survey under section 133A was conducted on 18-08-05, revealing a physical stock valued at Rs. 2,49,12,240/- against a book stock of Rs. 44,20,000/-. The difference of Rs. 1,79,35,023/- was initially offered as undisclosed income but later revised to Rs. 1,35,61,270/- in the return. The AO questioned this revision and required the assessee to justify the discrepancy. The assessee explained that some purchases and sales were not recorded at the survey time and recalculated the stock value using a higher G.P. rate. The AO accepted the G.P. rate of 18.68% but determined an excess stock of Rs. 1,58,38,634/-, leading to an addition of Rs. 22,77,364/-. The CIT(A) considered the intermingling of stock with other group concerns and accepted the purchases from M/s. Royal Gems Source, Bangkok, but not from local parties due to lack of verification. The CIT(A) recalculated the excess stock, resulting in a reduced addition of Rs. 2,42,338/-. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the overall stock position, including the intermingling of stock from other concerns, should be considered. 2. Restriction of Trading Addition Based on Closing Stock Found During the Survey: The second issue pertains to the CIT(A)'s restriction of the trading addition to Rs. 3,885/- against the AO's addition of Rs. 1,34,80,435/- based on documents found during the survey. The AO estimated unaccounted income/expenditure from various loose papers, approval memos, and physical inventory records, leading to substantial additions. The CIT(A) reviewed each document and found that many represented goods sent on approval or were related to earlier years. The CIT(A) concluded that the unaccounted sales should only result in a profit addition, not the entire sale amount, and confirmed an unexplained expenditure of Rs. 3,885/-. The Tribunal reviewed the CIT(A)'s findings and agreed with most of the deletions, except for a few items where it upheld the AO's additions, such as the memorandum cash book entries and purchases from Armila Gems, which were deemed unverified. 3. Deletion of Trading Addition in Respect of Non-Verifiable Purchases: The third issue involves the deletion of a trading addition of Rs. 4,88,290/- related to non-verifiable purchases from seven parties known for issuing bogus bills. The AO had made a trading addition of 25% of these purchases. The Tribunal noted that the books of account were to be rejected, but the gross profit shown was better than in preceding years. Considering the commission charged by bogus bill issuers, the Tribunal deemed a trading addition of Rs. 20,000/- appropriate for the non-verifiable purchases amounting to Rs. 19,53,161/-. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions on most issues, agreeing with the overall reduction in additions made by the AO, except for a few specific items where the AO's findings were upheld. The appeal of the Revenue was partly allowed, with the final order pronounced on 16-09-2011.
|
