9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 541X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience 2. The grievance of the assessee in ITA No.604/Mds/2015 is with regard to sustaining the addition of Rs. 2,47,628/-, which refers to the gross profit difference between server copy and books of accounts. 3. The brief facts of the case are that there was a survey under sec.133A of the Act on 29.1.2009 at the premises of the assessee. During the course of survey, item No.75 in annexure ANN/By/B&D/Imp dated 30.1.2009, a Jileba software was captured in Excel format and soft copy given to the assessee. It was asked by the Assessing Officer to reconcile the same. There was difference between server copy and books of account. In the server copy, the turnover was Rs. 817,252,574.43 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) has not appreciated various decisions relied on by the assessee. 5. On the other hand, the ld. DR relied on the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals). 6. We have heard both the sides and perused the material on record. In this case, admittedly, there is a difference of Rs. 25,84,844/-, when the assessee's books of account compared with the stock. There is no dispute on this issue. Therefore, the ld. AR's submission that net profit to be considered, cannot be accepted, as all the expenditure is relating to the business of the assessee and already debited in the profit and loss account. There is no iota of evidence to suggest that any further expenditure incurred relating to unaccounted business ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) challenging the addition of Rs. 67,015/-. Before the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals), it was challenged that an amount of Rs. 2,47,630/- being the gross profit added on unaccounted sales of year ended 31.3.2008 should have been reduced by the Assessing Officer from the income of the assessee. Otherwise, it would amount to double taxation in each of the two assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10. The Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) confirmed the addition of Rs. 67,015/- but he failed to give any finding regarding telescope of addition of Rs. 2,47,630/- which is added as income in the earlier assessment year and not adjudicated ground Nos. 1 & 2 raised before him which reads as follows: "( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me on 11.10.2010 admitting income of Rs. 1,25,25,700/-. The AO completed assessment for the assessment year 2009- 10 determining total income at Rs. 1,34,05,029/-, making an addition of Rs. 8,79,329/- on account of 'unaccounted sales'. Aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals). 11. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) observed that there was survey action under sec.133A on 29.1.2009 at an exhibition stall occupied by the assessee. During the course of survey, the physical inventory of stock was taken and the AO arrived at excess stock of the value of Rs. 8,79,329/- after reconciling the same with the book stock. The assessee contended that the action of the AO was not justified in a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t 21944.850 Gold 18 carat 398.200 Gold in Diamonds 4140.460 26483.510 Stock as per physical verification Stock as per letter dated 27.01.2009 26483.510 1) Stock 26010.440 Less: Sales 224.810 25785.630 Excess stock as on 29.01.2009 697.880 GRM The ld. AR wanted the basis for preparation of this excess stock. The stock was taken in the presence of the assessee, compared with the letter dated 27.1.2009 issued by it. Actually, the entire process was taken place in front of the assessee, without challenging the difference of stock, the assessee wanted to know the basis for excess stock. In our opinion, the plea of the assessee is devoid of merit. The computation stated above is self ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
