9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition on account of unaccounted stock and unexplained credit. 2. Consideration of assessee's explanation before the investigation wing and AO. Detailed Analysis: 1. Deletion of Addition on Account of Unaccounted Stock and Unexplained Credit: The Department challenged the consolidated order dated 21st Dec., 1994, by the CIT(A)-II, Bangalore, which related to three partnership firms. The primary contention was that the CIT(A) should have considered the statements made under section 132(4) and circumstantial evidence while deleting the additions for unaccounted stock and unexplained credit. The facts revealed that during a search on 9th Oct., 1990, a stock of fabrics valued at Rs. 59,07,946 was found at the premises of the firms. The firms filed their returns for the assessment year 1991-92, and the AO determined the income at Rs. 23,93,428 after due verification. Additions were made towards unaccounted stock of fabrics for the respective firms, which were later questioned by the assessees in their first appeals. The CIT(A) allowed the appeals, stating that the assessees had convincingly explained the entries and identified the suppliers. During the second appeal, the Departmental Representative reiterated the grounds of appeal, while the authorised representative for the assessees argued that the statements recorded under section 132(4) lacked corroboration and that the business transactions were customary and previously accepted by the Tribunal and High Court. The CIT(A)'s order was found to be comprehensive and reasoned, with the CIT(A) concluding that the statements of Sri L. Vasanthakumar were not binding on M/s Devi Ranga Sarees and lacked corroborative evidence. The CIT(A) noted that the AO had no convincing reason to disbelieve the material fact that in the silk fabric business, it was customary to accept goods on an approval basis and make payments later. 2. Consideration of Assessee's Explanation Before Investigation Wing and AO: The CIT(A) examined the assessment order in light of the submissions made by the assessees. It was found that the AO had misunderstood the payment dates, leading to incorrect conclusions. The CIT(A) verified the facts brought out by the representatives of the assessees and found them to be correct with reference to relevant documents, records, and bank statements. The AO's presumption that payments were made on 15th Sept., 1990, was dispelled by evidence showing payments were made on 13th Oct., 1990. The CIT(A) also addressed the AO's reliance on statements recorded from Sri L. Vasanthakumar, which were not binding on M/s Devi Ranga Sarees. The CIT(A) found that the statements under section 132(4) were not conclusive in light of corroborative evidence regarding the payments for purchases on an approval basis. The CIT(A) emphasized that the practice of accepting goods on an approval basis was customary in the silk fabric business, and this custom could not be dismissed by the AO. Conclusion: The CIT(A)'s order was upheld as it was reasoned and comprehensive. The CIT(A) deleted the additions made by the AO, finding no merit in the AO's conclusions. The appeals by the Department were dismissed, affirming the CIT(A)'s deletion of the additions for unaccounted stock and unexplained credit for the firms M/s Devi Silks, M/s Sri Ranga Silks, and M/s Devi Ranga Sarees.
|
