9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 541X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ition to uphold the argument of the ld. AR. He also submitted that since, the assessee has offered huge income of ₹ 7,20,07,082/- to the next A.Y., which also includes sale of this impugned stock, separate addition not to be made in this A.Y. In our opinion, each A.Y. is an independent A.Y. There is difference in stock which said to be unaccounted in this A.Y. and on that basis un-accounted sales are arrived for this assessment year and the income was estimated by applying GP rate, which is justified. - Decided against assessee. Benefit for telescope of addition made in immediately preceding year, as income on excess sales, against excess stock denied - Held that:- Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) confirmed the addition of S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Being so, there is no merit in the argument of the ld. AR and this ground is rejected. - Decided against assessee. - ITA Nos. 604 & 605 /Mds/2014 - - - Dated:- 19-6-2015 - SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI AND SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JJ. For The Appellant ; Shri G. Baskar, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri P. Radhakrishnan, JCIT ORDER PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER These appeals by the assessees are directed against the different orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) dated 29.1.2015. Since, these appeals are belonging to same group of assessee and issues involved in these appeals are inter-related, they are clubbed together, heard together and disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lea of the assessee observing that there is a difference between stock and physical stock at ₹ 25,84,844/- and the gross profit of the turnover to be considered for addition as ₹ 2,47,630/-, as all the expenditure is relating to the assessee s business, which has been debited in the profit and loss account. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. The ld. AR submitted that net profit is to be considered for addition due to stock difference without prejudice. It is submitted that the excess stock found as on 29.1.2009 was admitted in the return of income for the assessment year 2009-10and being so, no addition is to be made in the impugned assessment year. He further submitted that the Commissioner of Income-tax(A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner of Income-tax(Appeals) ought to have given benefit for telescope of addition made in immediately preceding year, as income on excess sales, against excess stock. 8. The facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income for the assessment year 2009-10 admitting an amount of ₹ 7,20,07,082/-. The Assessing Officer, during the course of survey, found that there was difference between cash found physically (Rs. 60,68,015/-) and cash available as per books(Rs.53,01,000/-) and worked out the difference to ₹ 67,015/-. He also found that the assessee has already offered ₹ 7,00,000/- as income of the assessee and difference of ₹ 67,015/- was added as income of the assessee. The assessee carried the ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le of the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) for adjudication. Accordingly, we remit this issue to the file of the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) to decide the issue in accordance with law. In the result, ITA No.605/Mds/2015 is allowed for statistical purposes. 9. The grievance in ITA No.606/Mds/2015 is with regard to confirming the addition of ₹ 8,79,327/- made toward excess stock of jewellery. 10. The facts of the case are that the assessee firm is engaged in jewellery business. Action under sec.133A of the Act was conducted on 29.1.2009 in the case of the assessee and search under sec.132 was conducted in the case of Shri A.B.Sudarsanam, partner of M/s. Swarnapuri AVR Jewellery. In response to notice u/s.153C of the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmitted that there is no basis for making addition of ₹ 8,79,327/- towards excess stock of jewellery and the lower authorities have not provided a copy of physical stock prepared on 29.1.2009 under sec.133A of the Act. Therefore, he pleaded that the addition to be deleted. 13. On the other hand, the ld. DR relied on the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals). 14. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. In this case, there was a survey in the premises of Hotel Velan, Tiruppur. The disclosed stock was 697.880 gms., which is as follows: 1) Stock as per letter dated 27.01.2009 26010.440 2) Less: Sales during 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
