9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 654X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,000/- which was disclosed along with an amount of Rs.41,00,000/- income and offered for taxation, when assessment is done under scrutiny scheme, and when sales, purchases, expenses are being allowed separate addition of Rs.2,00,000/- as excess cash is not just and legal. Ld. CIT (A)-I Surat has erred addition of Rs.2,00,000/- only for the reason that assessee had made specific disclosure,. Addition made by A.O. and confirmed by CIT(A)-I, Surat ignoring Hon'ble Board Circular that addition should not be made solely on the basis of acquience. 2. Ld. A.O. has erred in law and on facts to add an amount of Rs.2,24,714/- as stock difference. Details of stock in quantity as well as in value in furnished as per audited statement of accounts, G.P. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xcess stock found. The assessee had credited capital account by Rs 44,25,871/- inclusive of disclosure amount of Rs. 41,00,000/- and also shown the same on asset side of balance sheet. The AO was of the view that the amount disclosed under specific head of cash of Rs 2,00,000/- required to be brought to tax and accordingly an addition of Rs 2,00,000/- was made to the income. 5. Aggrieved with the action of AO, the Assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). Before CIT(A), the assessee contended that the amount of Rs 41 lacs disclosed in the form of stock already includes Rs 2 lac disclosed during the survey. Therefore the addition of separate addition of Rs 2 lac was uncalled for. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by holding as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f survey. It assessee due to mistake had shown the entire amount of Rs 41 lacs as stock whereas in reality the assessee should have bifurcated the amount of Rs 41 lacs into that of excess cash - Rs 2 lacs, Excess stock Rs 34 lacs and Miscelleous income Rs 5 lac. The A.R. thus contended that Rs 2 lac was already included by the assessee in the disclosure and again the AO has made addition of Rs 2 lac. This action of AO amounted to double addition. The Ld.A.R. thus urged that the addition of Rs 2 lac made be deleted. In the alternate, Ld. A.R., requested that the matter be restored to the file of AO for verification. 8. The Ld. D.R. on the other hand relied on the order of the AO and 9. We have heard the rival submissions and peruse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the basis of purchases worked on FIFO method inclusive of transportation charges and loading charges. Details of stock position based on FIFO method as on 31.3.2005 revealed the stock of Rs.63,98,909/- whereas the assessee had shown stock of Rs.61,74,195/- inclusive of Rs.41,00,000/- being amount disclosed during the survey proceedings. Thus there was excess difference in stock of Rs.2,24,714/-. As the assessee could not satisfactorily explain the discrepancy, the A.O. added Rs 2,24,714/- to the total income of assessee. 12. Aggrieved by this action of the A.O., the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT (A). CIT (A) after considering the submissions of the A.R. confirmed the action of the A.O. by holding as under: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
