9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 348X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ained stock found during the course of survey." 3. The learned DR submitted that even after the expiry of two years from the date of survey, the assessee could not reconcile its unexplained stock found during the survey, and therefore, the unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act was rightly made by the AO. He referred to the relevant portions of the assessment order in support of the case of the Revenue. He submitted that at the time of survey, the representative of the assessee has admitted the discrepancy in the stock, and therefore, the CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition made in this case. He relied on the orders of the AO and the CIT(A). 4. The learned counsel for the assessee has opposed the submissions of the learned DR. He has filed a chart which shows that the addition of Rs. 24,61,890/- consists of three parts viz. difference due to opening stock value not considered by the AO at Rs. 6,94,502/-, secondly, totaling mistake amount of Rs. 1,03,406/-, and the amount of Heena Fabrics wrongly taken in totaling at Rs. 50,895/-. He submitted that the ground of appeal of the Revenue regarding addition of Rs. 24,12,412/- is a patent mistake as the opening ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vis a vis the stock as per books on the date of survey. 2.0 The ld.CIT(A) further erred in law and on facts in considering only one mistake committed by survey party i.e. regarding not considering the closing stock of 31.3.2006. The other mistakes pointed out in the course of hearing of the appeal remained to be considered by him viz. totaling mistakes in ascertaining the physical stock, stock of one person taken in the hands of other person and vice versa, wrong inclusion of stock of M/s.Heena Fabrics etc. 3.0 The ld.CIT(A) further erred in law and on facts in not adjudicating the ground no.3 raised before him relating to the facts that the survey party had worked out the e4xcess stock simply on the basis of statement of Shri Rajesh Bhanwarlal Jain." 7. We have heard parties. The issue regarding totaling mistake of Rs. 1,03,406/- and addition of amount of Heena Fabrics of Rs. 50,895/- was not adjudicated by the CIT(A), and therefore, the issue in the grounds of the CO of the assessee are restored to the file of the CIT(A) with direction to adjudicate the same on merits, after allowing reasonable opportunity of hearing to both the parties. We direct accordingly. ITA No.159/Ahd/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... party i.e. regarding not considering the closing stock of 31.3.2006. The other mistakes pointed out in the course of hearing of the appeal remained to be considered by him viz. totaling mistakes in ascertaining the physical stock, stock of one person taken in the hands of other person and vice versa, wrong inclusion of stock of M/s.Heena Fabrics etc. 3.0 The ld.CIT(A) further erred in law and on facts in not adjudicating the ground no.3 raised before him relating to the facts that the survey party had worked out the excess stock simply on the basis of statement of Shri Rajesh Bhanwarlal Jain." 11. We have heard parties. We find that the issue of addition of bale's value taken twice by the AO at Rs. 52,324/- was not adjudicated by the CIT(A), and accordingly, the issue in the ground of the appeal of the assessee is restored to the file of the CIT(A) with direction to adjudicate the same on merits, after allowing reasonable opportunity of hearing to both the parties. We direct accordingly. ITA No.161/Ahd/2011 - Asstt.Year 2007-08 (In the case of Shri Sunilkumar Bhanwarlal Jain) 12. The grounds of the appeal are as under: "1.0 The ld.CIT(A) erred in law and on facts on not adjud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ground no.3 raised before him relating to the facts that the survey party had worked out the excess stock simply on the basis of statement of the appellant." 15. We find that the issue regarding the value of opening stock not taken while determining the excess stock of the assessee at the time of survey, has been decided in favour of the assessee, and there is no grievance left to the assessee on the issue. The learned counsel for the assessee fairly submitted that in this appeal of the assessee there is no undecided issue in the appellate order passed by the CIT(A), and therefore, the grounds of the appeal of the assessee may be dismissed. Accordingly, we dismiss the grounds of the appeal of the assessee, as no issue arises for adjudication before us from the appellate order passed by the CIT(A) and the grounds of the assessee are dismissed. ITA No.163/Ahd/2011 - Asstt.Year 2007-08 (In the case of Smt. Samtadevi Rajeshkumar Jain) 16. The grounds of the appeal are as under: "1.0 The ld.CIT(A) erred in law and on facts on not adjudicating the appeal of the respondent in respect of various mistakes pointed out by way of written submissions because those mistakes were committe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
