9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1057X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pressed sales is to be added as assessee’s income. This issue is restored with the aforesaid directions to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh order as per law. Unexplained investments - loose paper on the basis of which this addition is made - Held that:- The assessee has filed a Paper Book before us containing 10 pages which includes the copy of the assessee’s reply filed before the AO and copy of assessee’s submissions filed to Ld.CIT(A). The order of Ld.CIT(A) is a non-speaking order and does not explain why the explanation/evidences furnished by the assessee before AO and before ld.CIT(A) have been rejected. The order of the Ld.CIT(A) is also silent on why he chose to consider the aforesaid amount of ₹ 4,53,500/- and not the aforesaid net amount of ₹ 3,73,500/-; and from perusal of the order of the Ld.CIT(A) there is no mention that any opportunity was given by him to the assessee for taking this step. In view of these facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the order of Ld.CIT(A) is a nonspeaking order and has been passed without giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee. In the fitness of things, therefore, we set aside the order of Ld.CIT(A) and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owing total income of ₹ 1,79,100/-. A survey u/s 133A of the I.T.Act, 1961 (in short Act ) was conducted in the business premises of the assessee on 29.03.2007. At the time of survey u/s 133A of the Act, the net shortage of stock was valued at ₹ 1,52,538/- (i.e. the value of stock as per books was higher by an amount of ₹ 1,52,538/- as compared to value of stock physically found at the time of survey). Initially, the assessee explained that the shortage in stock was due to the fact that the same was lying with sister concern namely M/s Amba Marble Industries. On verification with M/s Amba Marble Industries, however, this explanation of the assessee was found to be wrong, as M/s Amba Marble Industries denied that any stock belonging to the assessee was lying with them. At a later stage the assessee furnished another explanation by way of reconciliation between stock physically found at the time of survey and stock as per books of the assessee at the time of survey. The Assessing Officer (in short AO ) rejected this second explanation of the assessee as being an after thought. In the assessment order dated 21.12.2009, the AO added the aforesaid amount of ₹ 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the decision of Pune Bench of ITAT in the case of Janta Tiles vs ACIT in IT(SS)A No.-144/Pune/1996 dated 06.04.1999 [2000] 66 TTJ 0695. On this issue, the Ld.CIT Departmental Representative (in short DR ) appearing for the Revenue stated that the credibility of the stock reconciliation furnished by the assessee to AO was doubtful because of varying explanations furnished by assessee at different stages. He pointed out that initially the assessee had explained that the shortage in stock was because the same was lying with the assessee s sister concern namely M/s Amba Marble Industries; and it was only when this explanation was found to be wrong that the assessee came up with the second explanation by way of stock reconciliation. We have heard both sides patiently on this issue and we have also carefully considered all materials on record. We find that the lower authorities have summarily rejected the stock reconciliation submitted by the assessee before the AO, as an afterthought without examining the merits of stock reconciliation provided by the assessee. We also find that the lower authorities have not given the reason for making the addition of the entire amount of alleged sup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the fact that he had already confirmed the addition of ₹ 1,52,538/- on account of alleged suppressed sales. He submitted that the addition on account of alleged suppressed sales should have been telescoped with addition on account of entries in the loose paper. The Ld.CIT (DR) appearing for the Revenue submitted that the additions have been made in accordance with law in view of the statutory presumption under section 292C of the Act. He supported the addition of ₹ 2,43,500/- and relied on the order of the Ld.CIT(A). We have heard both sides patiently. We have also carefully considered the materials on record and the precedents brought to our attention. The assessee has filed a Paper Book before us containing 10 pages which includes the copy of the assessee s reply filed before the AO and copy of assessee s submissions filed to Ld.CIT(A). The contention raised on behalf of the assessee by the Ld. counsel, therefore, that the addition has been made on the basis of dumb document cannot be accepted at this stage in view of the fact that the assessee has already owned up this document during assessment proceedings and during appellant proceedings before Ld.CIT(A). The ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount of ₹ 4,53,500/- and not the aforesaid net amount of ₹ 3,73,500/-. The Ld.CIT(A) is directed to provide reasonable opportunity to the assessee before passing fresh order. This issue is restored, with the aforesaid directions, to the file of the Ld.CIT(A), for fresh orders as per law. (C.2). As far as claim now made on behalf of assessee before us regarding benefit of telescoping is concerned, we find that no specific ground of appeal in this regard has been taken by the assessee. On perusal of records before us, we find that this ground/plea was not raised by the assessee either before the Ld.CIT(A) or even before the AO. Telescoping is an issue to be decided on the specific facts of the case, and Revenue must get an opportunity to examine this claim in the light of facts of the case. In the present case, the Revenue has not got this opportunity as this claim was not made by assessee before lower authorities. In these facts and circumstances, we decline to adjudicate on the issue of telescoping, at present. We have already set aside both the issues in dispute (additions on account of alleged suppressed sales and on account of entries in the loose paper) to the fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
