9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 230X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . R. Meena,JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri D. C. Sharma For the Respondent : Shri Siddharth Ranka ORDER Per R. P. Tolani, JM. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-1, Jaipur dated 06-02-2012 for the assessment year 2007-07 and the assessee has filed the cross objection. 2.1 The Revenue raised the solitary ground as under:- Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) is justified in reducing the trading addition of ₹ 16,41,193/- to ₹ 1,24,173/- ignoring the fact that total amount of negative balance on various dates was of ₹ 16,41,193/- 2.2 The assessee in its C.O. has raised various grounds but the solitary iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed goods with fresh stock. In support of its contention, the assessee has filed documentary evidence in many cases except the category mentioned at (ii) (iv) above. In the category mentioned at (ii) (iv) above the assessee has not filed any documentary evidence under the consideration, there is no alternative but to treat these instances as sales made out of the unrecorded stock. The purchase value of such instances is worked out at ₹ 16,41,193/- and the same is added to the total income of the assessee as unrecorded investment in purchase of stock. 2.4 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred first appeal wherein the ld. CIT(A) gave partial relief to the assessee by following observations. 4.1 The AO observed in his order t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . AO as financial capacity is not good. Thus the addition made on this score is quite unjustified. In the alternate, the peak valuation of negative stock should have been considered in place of value of entire day-today negative stock. 4.3 I have carefully perused the order of the AO and the submission of the A.R. It is seen that the appellant maintained all the books of accounts and bills and vouchers. It has shown a comparable g.p. during this year that is 9.40% on turnover of ₹ 1,08,81,318/- as compared to 9.41% on total turnover of ₹ 1,25,05,850/- in the immediately previous assessment year. It was noticed that out of the 6 defects pointed out by the AO explanation in regard to 4 was accepted. Explanation regarding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... addition. 2.8 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. In our considered opinion, no fault can be found from ld. CIT(A) in accepting the assessee's alternate plea of peak valuation of negative stock. The ld. Counsel for the assessee could not improve his case from the level of the ld. CIT(A) i.e. in respect of two instances. The stock discrepancy is not satisfactorily explained. In these circumstances, we uphold the order of the ld. CIT(A). Thus the appeal of the Revenue and the C.O. of the assessee are dismissed. 3.0 In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the C.O. of the assessee are dismissed. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 26-09-2014. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
