2012 (10) TMI 894 - HC - Income Tax

Survey u/s 133A - Addition on account of books of account of the assessee were found incomplete - appellant submitted that though the cash in hand was found to be Rs.30,40,000/- whereas unaccounted cash was to the tune of Rs.3,23,999/- only Held that - during the course of survey, the assessee was not able to offer any plausible explanation for the sum of Rs.30,40,000/- which was surrendered by the assessee. Further, during the course of survey, it was found that certain sale invoices were either not recorded in the books of account or were under invoiced. The assessee had also admitted certain notings in the diary and note books to be on account of sales which were unaccounted. In the light of the aforesaid findings, the contention of the assessee that the amount of Rs. 27,16,001/- could not be included as unaccounted cash and it was Rs.3,23,999/- only does not carry any weight and the plea of the assessee has rightly been dispelled by the authorities below. against assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Justification of directing the AO to take a specific rate against the rate shown by the assessee.
2. Perversity of the Tribunal's order in failing to appreciate discrepancies found during the survey and subsequent reconciliation.

Issue 1:
The appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 questioned the ITAT's directive to the AO to use a rate different from what the assessee declared. The AO had adopted a rate of Rs. 800/- instead of the Rs. 428/- declared by the assessee, based on an employee's statement. The High Court dismissed question (A) as not pressed by the appellant, thus upholding the Tribunal's decision on this matter.

Issue 2:
Regarding the discrepancies found during the survey and subsequent reconciliation, the assessee argued that the addition of the entire cash amount was unjustified as only a portion was unaccounted for. The AO, however, rejected this argument based on various reasons, including the lack of timely clarification by the assessee and inconsistencies in the explanation provided. The CIT (A) and the Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing the importance of daily cash counting and the lack of evidence to support the assessee's claims. The Tribunal highlighted the failure of the assessee to explain the source of the cash found during the survey and the discrepancies in the books of account, leading to the confirmation of the addition of Rs. 27,16,001/- as unaccounted cash.

In conclusion, the High Court affirmed the lower authorities' findings, stating that the assessee failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the surrendered cash amount during the survey. The Court emphasized the importance of timely retraction if needed and the lack of evidence to support the assessee's claims of reconciliation. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, as no legal question arose from the concurrent findings.