9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 1051X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of excess cash found and accepted by the assessee in his statement during the course of survey u/s. 133A. ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) was not justified in deleting the addition of ₹ 18,20,000/- on account of renovation of shop from unaccounted sources being accepted by the assessee during the course of survey u/s. 133A. iii) On the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) was not justified in deleting the addition of ₹ 8,17,962/- on account of excess stock found at the premises of the assessee during the course of survey u/s. 133A. iv) The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any / all the grounds of appeal before or during t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontentions in light of the material produced and precedent relied upon. We find that following was a detail of cash found during the survey, copy of statement was duly submitted by the ld. Counsel of the assessee. The same inventory read as under:- (Rs.) i) 1000x100 = 1,00,000 ii) 500x1362 = 6,81,000 iii) 100 x 519 = 51,900 iv) 500 x 50 = 7,500 v) 20 x 15 = 300 vi) 10 x 132 = 1,320 vii) Coins = 141 = &# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f ₹ 18,20,000/- was incurred on the renovation of shop. The Assessing Officer made the addition in this regard based upon the survey statement. 8. Assessee appealed before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) and the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) observed that there is no evidence on record which would even remotely suggest that huge expenditure of 18,20,000/- has been incurred in renovation of the shop. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) observed that earlier in the surrender statement on this account the assessee has stated no major renovation has been done in this premises, it is in the nature of normal repairs . however, to buy peace I am surrendering ₹ 18,20,000/- on account of renovation of this shop. 8.1 Fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it of 4.98%. A difference of ₹ 8,36,677/- of the stock as per books and stock actually found was determined. Assessee has surrendered the same amount. 12. Before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) it was submitted that the addition in this regard is totally unjustified. It was further submitted that the assessee valued closing stock at cost price and market price whichever is lower. It was further submitted that the average discount provided in this regard on the purchase was 18 to 24% approx. on the rate mentioned in the bill. Accordingly, it was submitted that the valuation as taken by the survey team on the MRP of items was misleading and unjustified. Considering the above, Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) observed that on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rate of 4.98% the sum of ₹ 18715/- is treated as undisclosed profit outside books of account. Therefore, as discussed there is no case for making an addition on account of excess stock and the addition of ₹ 836677/- is in principle deleted; however the addition is partly substituted by the addition of ₹ 18715/- being undisclosed profits on the sale outside the books. The appellant accordingly gets a relief of ₹ 817962/-. 13. Against the above order the Revenue is in appeal before us. 14. We have heard the rival contentions in light of the material produced and precedent relied upon. We find that it is the contention of the assessee on this issue that the stock at the time of survey was valued at MRP. If the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
