9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 176X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its. Hence, we hold that the case need not be remitted back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A). Addition towards valuation in closing stock - unexplained investment - difference in stock with reference to the bill books and invoices - Held that:- The assessee has produced both the bill books before the assessing officer along with books of accounts, but the assessing officer did not find any defect in the books of accounts. As per the invoices, the purchases and sales are tallied and there was no difference. The assessing officer having verified books of accounts with the bill books, no defect was found by the assessing officer. All the purchases and sales are accounted and there was no discrepancy in the stock. There was no dispute with regard to the purchases. The assessee had declared the sales inclusive of 62 bars in sales account and furnished the details with address to the AO. The AO did not make any enquiry with regard to the sales and no difference was found. Therefore we hold that there is no case for making the addition on account of unexplained investment. The assessing officer made the addition as unexplained investment but the assessing officer did not make out a case th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which such search is conducted. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 84,24,000/- towards variation in closing stock as the variation was quantified basing on the quantitative details of the stock traded during the financial year 2007-08 gathered from the seized material i.e. sale invoice books seized during the course of search. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the facts brought on by the A.O. in the assessment order regarding the fabricated tax invoice book 1 which was not produced/ listed during the course of search. 8. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions of suppression of sales of ₹ 7,31,878/- and unexplained investment in purchases of ₹ 10184,161/- as the additions are based on the information obtained from the commercial taxes department. 9. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider that the assessee has not explained the difference in sales and purchases as per printed books and as per VAT returns, to the satisfaction of the A.O. 10. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing. 2. Ground No.1 and 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tions of 52 gold bars are reflected in the bank statements and books of account seized by the department Assumptions as to fabrication of Tax Invoice book/s is not bonafide. 52 bars of gold bullion relates to the FY2007-08 whereas the rate of Ps 1,62,000/- per bar as on 24.09.09 is adopted Relief prayed for - ₹ 84,24,000/- v. The learned Assessing Officer failed to consider the facts of purchases/sales in original / revised VAT returns, copies of which were submitted on 25.11.11 regarding the purchases/sales particulars filed before the Commercial Tax Officer. Month January-Purchases -Original 5,52,63,140/- 15.02.2008 Revised 5,41,78,981/- 19.04.2008 Alleged Difference 10,84,161/- February-Sales Original 8,86,07,080/- 15.03.2008 - Revised 8,78,75,198/- 19.04.2008 Alleged Difference 7,31,878/- It is pertinent to not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... awn the wrong conclusion on the basis of seized material as well as regular books of accounts. Therefore, Ld.AR vehemently opposed to remit the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) and argued that since the facts establish that the CIT(A) has considered the grounds of appeal as well as the submissions of the assessee which were purely on merits, it is incorrect to hold that CIT(A) has not considered the merits and there is no case to remit the matter back to the file of the CIT(A). 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. The assessing officer made the addition on the basis of invoices seized during the course of search relating to non tax invoices issued without collection of VAT to the dealers of Gold / Bullion. According to the Ld.AR, the invoices raised on sales made to dealers (Tax invoices) were not seized by the department, hence there was a difference. During the appeal hearing, the assessee had submitted all the details of sales made in paper book and the same were placed before the AO at the time of hearing. The assessee has submitted the complete details on the sales made with regard to tax invoices i.e. dealers with address and am ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 068 6.1. The assessing officer observed that the assessee did not produce the tax invoice book before the DDIT (Inv.) and was not found during the course of search and the assessee even failed to produce during the post search enquiries. Therefore, the assessing officer held that the tax invoice book No.1 was fabricated evidence to tally stock at nil. According to the assessing officer, there should have been stock of 52 gold bars with the assessee which were not declared by the assessee. Accordingly, the assessing officer valued the gold bars at ₹ 1,62,000/- per bar and brought to tax a sum of ₹ 84,20,000/- as unexplained investment. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the assessing officer holding that the addition was not based on any incriminating material found. 8. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT (A), the revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal. During the appeal hearing the Ld.DR argued that during the assessment proceedings and the search proceedings, the Income Tax authorities asked to explain the closing stock difference fou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssing officer did not find any defect in the books of accounts. Therefore, Ld.AR argued that the assessing officer has made the addition on presumptions and surmises which needs to be deleted. 9.1 The Ld. AR further argued that a search u/s 132 was conducted in the assessee s case by the Income Tax Department. The department has seized some books and papers and did not seize some books. The assessee was in confused state of affairs and he could not make out whether the books were seized or not and he could not locate the tax invoices / books immediately, hence, the tax invoice book could not be produced before the DDIT. However, the assessee has furnished the entire details and the tax invoices before the AO which was brushed aside by the AO. 10. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record. We have gone through the paper book filed by the assessee. A search u/s 132 was carried out in this case on 25.09.2009. There is no evidence / discussion in the assessment order with regard to incriminating material found by the department evidencing the unaccounted purchases or unaccounted sales. There was no indication of excess stock or excess cash foun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
