9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 74X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arious other factors which are listed herein above including the fall in the GP ratio from 34.73% in the preceding assessment year to 20.35% in the subject assessment year. The grievance about the submissions made in respect of the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Act on behalf of Respondent Assessee cannot be now countenanced as the order dated 27th March, 2006 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 was accepted by the Appellant. Be that as it may, we are of the view that there was material on record which supports the view taken by the Assessing Officer in rejecting the books of account under Section 145(3) of the Act. This has been confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... circumstances of the case and the argument advanced by the learned CA on behalf of the assessee have been carefully examined and considered. It is an undisputed fact as evident from the statement recorded during survey and referred above that the assesee had declared additional income of ₹ 8,00,000/- (not stock) at the time of survey on account of stock discrepancy found during survey and other discrepancies including some expenses incurred on renovation. This is also apparent from the fact that during the survey in the case of the assessee and it's sister concern M/s. Top Optics even though stock discrepancy of only ₹ 9,82,869/- had come to notice but it was on account of this discrepancy and other discrepancies including u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee has casted it's Profit and Loss A/c. in a planned manner so as to dissociate itself from the committed taxability on additional income of ₹ 8,00,000/, declared during survey. It is also unfortunate that even though it was a survey case and specific discrepancy and other incriminating facts had come to notice, the Assessing Officer accepted the return of income of ₹ 14,244/- in complete disregard of the objective of the scrutiny. In fact, the assessee had declared additional income over and above other income earned by it during the year. The assessee's contention, if any, that it had suffered losses during the year could not be accepted on its fact value when it did not indicate so during the course of su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction was carried out on the Appellant on 17th January, 2002 and discrepancies were found in stock resulting in Appellant-Assessee offering an additional income of ₹ 8 lakhs on account of excess stock in its possessing. The post survey sale of the frames by the Appellant-Assessee were at ₹ 6 to ₹ 10 per frame as against their cost of ₹ 650/- to ₹ 850/- per frame. Besides, no documentary evidence in support of its sale or satisfactory explanation given for the low value at which frames were sold as being defective. Besides, various other defects as recorded in the assessment order were taken into account while rejecting the books of account under Section 145(3) of the Act. The Assessing Officer, thereafter, appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the Appellant-Assessee that the low price at which they were sold was because they were damaged or defective could not be supported by the Respondent with the help of any supporting document. In view of the above, the Revenue was unable to verify the sale alleged to have made in cash as the names and address of the purchasers were not furnished. Thus, on examination of material on record, the impugned order held that the Assessing Officer was justified in rejecting the books of account under Section 145(3) of the Act. 7. Mr. Gandhi, in support of the appeal submits that there was no justification for the Assessing Officer to reject the books of account under Section 145(3) of the Act. It is submitted by him that merely because Appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t being able to give the names and addresses of the persons who purchased the frames in cash. The fall in the GP ratio from that existing in the preceding year and also during the post survey period was not sufficiently explained. The decision in the case of R. B. Jessaram Fatehchand (supra) relied upon by the Respondent Assessee is distinguishable as in that case the only reason for rejection of the books of account were on account of Respondent Revenue therein being unable to supply the names and address of customers to whom sugar was sold in cash. There was no other reason for rejecting the books of account. In the present facts, it is not only the failure of the Respondent-Assesssee in giving the names and addresses of the purchasers in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
