9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 46X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), dated 25.03.2014. 2.The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: "1.For that the Ld. Appellate erred on fact and laws by confirming the estimation of Rs. 95,654/- which is baseless and on surmise. 2.For that method of determination of undisclosed purchase by Ld. A.O. by applying disclosed G.P. rate of appellant is incorrect and wrong. 3.For that confirmation of addition of Rs. 30,75,702/- by the appellate authority is unjust and cryptic since the Appellant reconciled the purchase differences in the proper manner both in Assessment as well as in remand stage which is mainly non-inclusion of input VAT and allied items. 4.For that non consideration of positive remand report ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nput VAT and Output VAT had not entered. Only on entry as "lnput Credit for the F.Y.10-11" of Rs. 36,853.04 was entered in Balance Sheet. From that entry in balance sheet, it was not clear about the total amount of lnput and Output VAT and also the assessee has not furnished any other documentary evidences, i.e., Sales Tax Return or any other documents, which can prove total input and output VAT. The total amount of Rs. 30,17,341/- was treated by AO as difference from M/s Bengal Beverage Pvt. Ltd. (ii) M/s Global Aqua Pvt. Ltd.: Total amount of net purchase confirmed by the company of Rs. 4,02,478/-, but net purchase in respect ofM/s Global Aqua Pvt. Ltd. was shown of Rs. 3,59,820/-. Hence, the difference comes to Rs. 42,658/-(Rs. 4,02,47 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... served that the assessee has stated nothing more than to assert that he had explained all the differences of accounts between the various parties. The CIT(A) also noted that the fact of the matter was that despite several opportunities, the appellant did not provide supporting material for his contentions on VAT. There were no details of sales tax provided which would have served as an independent corroborative piece of evidence to support the contentions of the assessee. It may be observed that the appellant has nowhere tried to explain the circumstances or conditions due to which he could not produce the supporting evidence. The only thing that has to be relied upon to explain the difference found by the AO through his independent inquiry ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther hand, the Ld. DR for the Revenue has primarily reiterated the stand taken by the Assessing Officer, which we have already noted in our earlier para and is not being repeated for the sake of brevity. 3.5 Having heard the rival submissions, perused the material available on record, we are of the view that in the remand report of the Assessing Officer it is clearly mentioned that assessee has explained the difference with reconciliation statement on production of different ledgers, VAT Returns etc. therefore, there is no question of treating the amount as 'unexplained expenditure'. We note that CIT(A) did not considered the remand report at all therefore, it is against the principle of natural justice. Therefore, based on the factual pos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
