9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (10) TMI 248 - AT - Income TaxUnaccounted investment in stock - addition based on statement recorded in survey u/s 133A - Addition of stock difference in the surplus stock as determined at the time of survey and determined by the appellant while furnishing the return of income - HELD THAT - During the course of survey statement recorded u/s 133A of the Act would not be a strong piece of evidence. In case the assessee is in a position to reconcile the discrepancy with positive material, in that event, the A.O. should give relief to the assessee. In the present case, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has taken us through the various pages of paper book to support his contention that the stock is duly reconciled. We find that the A.O. has taken into account sales but the purchases of udad which was not recorded in the books and subsequently recorded after drawing a fresh trading account, no specific defect in such reconciliation is pointed out by the A.O. Under these facts, we are of the view that the A.O. is not justified in making the addition. Therefore, the A.O. is directed to delete this addition. Unaccounted cash - HELD THAT - We have heard the rival submissions, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The fact that the assessee has reflected cash balance as on 15.1.2005 at ₹ 11,965/- is not controverted by the revenue by placing any contrary material, therefore, the addition made is not justified. We therefore, direct the A.O. to delete this addition. Addition of HUF income - Addition on the hands of assessee - HELD THAT - As perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The contention of the assessee is that the document relates to a separate entity who has filed its return of income since 2004-05. The fact that HUF namely M/s. Ramlal Birdichand Vani HUF was assessed to tax is to be verified at the end of the Assessing officer. Therefore, this issue is set aside to the file of the A.O. to decide it afresh. The ground of the assessee s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Addition in respect of the advances made to Shri Kamlesh Vani and others as made in the written submissions - contention of the assessee is that there was a peak investment which is lower - HELD THAT - No addition is called for. This fact requires verification and reconsideration by the A.O. We therefore, considering the fact that before the A.O., the assessee had not made such argument, we set aside this ground to the file of the A.O. to decide it afresh after considering the submissions of the assessee. The assessee s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Addition in respect of the different in stock - only explanation regarding difference in stock is that the assessee was carrying out business in the individual as well as proprietorship capacity - HELD THAT - It is true that revenue cannot direct the assessee how he should carry out his business but where the assessee tries to create a colourable device such act is not permissible under the law. In the present case, the assessee has claimed that he was running business in proprietary and individual capacity. Therefore, the stock related to proprietary and individual capacity was available at the premises. We are unable to accept this contention of the assessee as the assessee has not disclosed in his accounts related to earlier years that he was carrying out business under the proprietary and individual capacity. The ignorance of law cannot be an excuse to avoid tax liability. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere in the finding of the Ld. CIT(A). This ground of the assessee s appeal is dismissed. Difference in the cash - HELD THAT - As perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that the assessee has reconciled difference by placing bank statement and cash book. There is no contrary material brought by the revenue to rebut this. Therefore, we direct the A.O. to delete this addition. This ground of the assessee s appeal is allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Addition of ?2,68,998/- on account of unaccounted stock. 2. Addition of ?2,730/- on account of unaccounted cash. 3. Addition of ?12,35,990/- on account of unaccounted investments/advances. 4. Addition of ?2,15,560/- in respect of advances to Shri Kamlesh Vani and others. 5. Addition of ?6,82,044/- in respect of difference in stock. 6. Addition of ?1,26,001/- on account of unaccounted cash balance. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Addition of ?2,68,998/- on account of unaccounted stock: The assessee argued that the discrepancy in stock was due to incomplete recording of purchases in the books of accounts. The survey recorded stock till 15.1.2005, but purchases made after this date were not considered. The assessee reconciled the stock and demonstrated that the difference was attributable to unrecorded purchases. The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (A.O.) should have considered the reconciled stock and directed the deletion of this addition, noting that the statement recorded during the survey under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has limited evidentiary value if the discrepancy can be reconciled with positive material. 2. Addition of ?2,730/- on account of unaccounted cash: The assessee contended that the cash balance as per the books written up to 15.1.2005 was ?11,965/-, which, if considered, would result in a shortage rather than excess. The Tribunal found that the revenue did not provide contrary evidence to dispute the cash balance, and thus directed the A.O. to delete this addition. 3. Addition of ?12,35,990/- on account of unaccounted investments/advances: The assessee claimed that the impounded documents related to a separate entity, M/s. Ramlal Birdichand Vani HUF, which was independently assessed to tax since the assessment year 2004-05. The Tribunal directed the A.O. to verify this claim and decide the issue afresh, thus allowing the ground for statistical purposes. 4. Addition of ?2,15,560/- in respect of advances to Shri Kamlesh Vani and others: The assessee argued that certain transactions pertained to the previous assessment year and had revised the return for A.Y. 2004-05 accordingly. The Tribunal noted that this argument was not presented before the A.O. and required verification. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside this issue to the A.O. for fresh consideration, allowing the ground for statistical purposes. 5. Addition of ?6,82,044/- in respect of difference in stock: The assessee explained that the difference in stock was due to carrying out business in both individual and proprietorship capacities. The Tribunal rejected this explanation, noting that the assessee had not disclosed such dual business operations in prior years and dismissed the ground, upholding the addition. 6. Addition of ?1,26,001/- on account of unaccounted cash balance: The assessee reconciled the cash difference by presenting bank statements and the cash book. The Tribunal found no contrary evidence from the revenue and directed the A.O. to delete this addition, thus allowing the ground. Conclusion: - The appeal in ITA No.491/Ind/2018 for A.Y. 2005-06 was allowed for statistical purposes. - The appeal in ITA No.492/Ind/2018 for A.Y. 2005-06 was partly allowed. Order Pronounced: The order was pronounced in the open court on 27.09.2019.
|
