9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 1306X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ddition of Rs. 49,68,130 made towards unexplained investment in excess stock. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have recorded the reasons for admitting the additional evidences by way of stock reconciliation statement furnished by the assessee during the appellate proceedings in accordance with Rule 46A(2) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to allow an opportunity to the Assessing Officer to examine the additional evidences admitted during the appellate proceedings and furnish his report which is mandatory as per Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) ought not to have accepted the assessee's claim that the variation in the value of the stocks as per the statement furnished to the Bank and as per th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the OD a/c of the business and utilized for personal use was disallowed, as the assessee has diverted business funds and not offered interest on the same. (ii) An amount of Rs. 54,411 is disallowed u/s.40A(3) on account of payment made in cash. (iii) Addition of Rs. 49,68,130 on account of excess stock available as on 31.03.2007, 3. On appeal, the first appellate authority at paras No. 5.4.1 to 5.4.3 stated the reasons for granting relief to the assessee. Aggrieved, Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal and has raised 7 grounds extracted hereinabove. 4. During the course of hearing Mr. Rajeev K. Singh submitted that the reconciliation statements were filed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) without giving an op ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itting the matter either to the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that on legal grounds itself the addition has to be deleted as the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT-IV, Hyderabad vs. M/s. Sri Taraka Jewellers in ITTA.No.274 of 2013 order dated 12th July, 2013 has upheld the order of the Tribunal, by holding that there cannot be an addition of difference in stock statement furnished to bank and the one shown in the books of accounts. 6. After hearing the rival contentions, we find that the first appellate authority at para No. 5.4.1 of his order has clearly stated that he had not given any direction whatsoever to the Assessing Officer, to make the above said addition for the assessment year 2007-08, while disposing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
