9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 72X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee had been duly audited as per the requirement of section 44 AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessing officer has not pointed out any defect in the books of accounts but has simply substituted the value of stock as per books of accounts with the information supplied by the bank although the book results were held to be correct. Moreover, in the instant appeals it is a case of hypothecation and not of pledge and as such the stock is not with the bank. The Tribunal has also, on numerous occasions, held that addition on this account was not justified where the books of accounts or the accounting system had been found to be genuine duly supported by vouchers etc. Thus, addition on account of difference in stock can be made onl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d gold ornaments and jewellery. During assessment proceedings, the assessing officer noticed that the assessee was enjoying hypothecation limit from the State Bank of India wherein the value of stock on 31st March 2009 had been reported at ₹ 93,522,340/- whereas the balance sheet showed the closing stock at ₹ 87,327,287. The AO proceeded to treat the difference of ₹ 61,95,053/- as income of the assessee under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. On appeal, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) deleted the addition by holding that the purchases and sales were properly vouched and that the payments were made through cheques and that all the bills and vouchers were properly maintained. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) further observed that the book ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 254 vide order dated 04/07/2016 in MA No. 37/DEL/2015 on the ground that the decision of the coordinate bench in the case of ACIT versus Kukra Chain and Jewellery Private Limited was not considered by the ITAT while passing the order in assessee s case. 2.02 The grounds of appeal raised by the revenue in this appeal are as under 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 73,48,078/- made by the A.O on account of difference in stock. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 10,66,381/- made by the A.O. on account of provision for rate difference. 3. The order of the CIT (A) is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said to be maintaining books of accounts on day to day basis and the purchase and sales were properly vouched. Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act provides books of accounts, regularly kept in the course of business are relevant wherever they refer to a matter into which the court has to inquire. Thus, entries made in the books of accounts maintained in the ordinary course of business would be relevant evidence and, thus, they would, to some extent, carry with them a presumption of truth. The books of accounts of the assessee had been duly audited as per the requirement of section 44 AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessing officer has not pointed out any defect in the books of accounts but has simply substituted the value of stock ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
