9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 67X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case, ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that gross profit rate of 48% to be applied to job work receipts and 25% on sales outside books. 3. Because on facts and in circumstances of the case, ed. A o has erred in confirming addition on account of undisclosed capital employed at Rs. 500000.00. 4. Because on facts and in circumstances of the case, ed. Cit (a) has erred in going into irrelevant considerations in confirming additions and his observations/conclusions are not based on sound reasoning and deserves to be struck down and entire claims of the assessee be allowed. 5. Because on facts and in circumstances of the case, the assessment order as well as observations of ld. Assessing Officer as well as appeal order by ld. CIT(A) are not com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... treated the difference of Rs. 2,99,798/- as concealed income of the assessee-firm from job work done. 4. Against this addition, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and the submissions made by the assessee before the Assessing Officer vide his letter dated 18.12.2008 was reproduced by the ld. CIT(A) in para 3.3.1 of his order. In this letter, the assessee has admitted that discrepancies in the accounts are on account of clerical mistake and there was no iota of attitude to conceal the particulars of income. 5. The ld. CIT(A) dealt with the issue in the light of material available on record and having not convinced with the explanations of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs. 2,99,798/- on account o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the addition of Rs. 2,99,798/-. 7. So far as the other addition of Rs. 1,60,205/- based on impounded bill books, namely Annexure BK-2/24 is concerned, we find that this book contains bills in respect of sales made in cash. According to this bill book, the assessee, during the period 2.4.2005 to 31.3.2006, has made cash sales amounting to Rs. 1,60,205/- which is not reflected in the regular books of account maintained by the assessee. Though an appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A), but the assessee could not place any evidence to explain that the cash sales shown in the bill book, namely BK-2/24 was duly recorded in the regular books of account. The ld. CIT(A) re-examined the claim of the assessee, but was not convinced with the explanati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ks that the total sale of Rs. 91,39,327/- has been made during the financial year relevant to the assessment year 2006-07. This sale was not reflected in the regular books of account of the assessee. The Assessing Officer further observed that all the sales which have been recorded in BK1/2 are being reflected in the ledger BK2/20. This shows that these two books are containing trading activities carried without recording in the regular books of account. The Assessing Officer accordingly made an addition of Rs. 26,63,200/- as net profit, having applied the gross profit rate @ 29.14% on the total sale of Rs. 91,39,327/-. 10. Though the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), but he could not co-relate the entries found in the se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... figure of Rs. 91,39,327/-. The assessee has not pin pointed as to which sales have been duplicated. The onus is on the assessee to furnish such details. The assessee has not produced any books of accounts or any relevant documents before the CIT(A) which would show that whole or part of Rs. 39,01,030/- (reflected in the regular/audited books of accounts) was part of Rs. 91,39,327/- (as culled out from the impounded books). The AO has clearly given a finding in the assessment order that "none of the amount is matching with the amount of sales as recorded in its regular books of accounts". (II) The assessee has submitted an extract of trial balance as on 31.03.2006 which is part of the impounded documents. In assessee's own words : "..i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee has preferred an appeal before the Tribunal, but could not place any evidence on record to justify that the sales made by the assessee, found recorded in the seized material, were already recorded in the books of account, though the ld. counsel for the assessee has orally submitted that the sales found recorded in the seized material are already recorded in the books of account and it amounts to double addition. Though the ld. counsel for the assessee has filed copy of ledger and copies of the seized material, but could not co-relate the entries found in the seized material with the ledger of the regular books of account. Moreover, in the written submission filed before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee himself has admitted that the sales s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
