9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 252X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Learned Representatives take us to the CIT(A)'s detailed discussion on the former main issue of stock discrepancy addition amounting to Rs.77,89,600/- reading as under:- "2.2 I have gone through the submissions made by the appellant. The AO has taken the physical stock available in the business premises as on the date of survey and worked out the difference as per the books stock as well as the physical stock. There was no dispute as far as taking up physical stock is concerned. the appellant furnished copy of letter dated 04.03.2011 addressed to the ACIT, Circle-1, Burdwan, objecting the method of stock taking stating that the 'survey team has taken the physical stock without any pains for counting the bags full of paddy. They did not given break the stage to get the actual stock position, hence the stock position as taken is false, concocted and motivated. The actual stock as physically appeared in the godowns was tallying with the registers maintained by the rice mill. The counting of stock is not an easy task an it will take at least 2 hours if you engage sufficient staff but they survey team has got it counted within one hour.'. The objection letter was filed before the AC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The appellant is well aware of his assessment jurisdiction because he is a regular assessee. Therefore, the objections raised by the appellant vide their letter dated 04/03/2011 before the ACIT-Circle-1 who did not hold the jurisdiction is not valid. Accordingly, the objection raised by the appellant in Ground No.1 regarding the manner and method of physical verification is not tenable and accordingly dismissed. 2.3 As on the date of survey the physical stock available, the book stock and the difference of paddy was as under: Name of the Item Physical verification Qntls. Books Qntls. Remarks Excess(+)/Short(-) Paddy 19320.00 9583.00 9737.00 The AO estimated the value of difference of stock of paddy @ Rs. 800/- per quintal which worked out to Rs. 77,89,600/- for which the appellant could not explain the source of investment either at the time of survey or during the assessment, therefore, the AO made the addition of Rs. 77,89,600/- to the returned income as unexplained investment. 2.3(i) The appellant has stated that the survey was carried out by Income-Tax Officer Ward 2(2), Burdwan on 28.02.2011. Objection thereon was preferred on 04.03.2011 before ACIT, Circle-1, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... High Court held as under: '4. We shall now consider the questions as proposed for the appeal relating to assessment years 2006-07 for our consideration. (a) Regarding Question No.A: (i) The grievance of the appellant before us is that no reliance can be placed upon the statement made by the appellant during the survey proceedings under Section 133A of the Act for the reason that it was recorded on oath. It is undisputed that even under Section 133A of the Act dealing with survey proceedings, the revenue authorities are entitled to record the statement of any person which may be useful or relevant to proceedings under the Act. the power to record a statement during survey proceedings is found in Section 133A(3) of the Act. The relevant portion of which reads as under:- "Power of Survey Section 133AA (1)to (2) (3) An income tax authority acting under this section may:- (i) & (ii) ** ** ** (iii) record the statement of any person which may be useful for, or relevant to, any proceeding under this Act." The requirement of recording a statement on oath is found in Section 132 of the Act i.e. during search and seizure proceeding and such a requirement is not found in Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter oath and to take a sworn statement whereas under Section 132(4) of the Act there is no provision to examine a person on oath. But it does not mean that a statement under Section 133A of the Act can be retracted at the whim and fancy of the assessee. In the light of the aforesaid, the assertions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. In the case of the appellant the Assessing Officer has taken a physical inventory of stock and on the basis of physical inventory found during the course of survey the statement under section 133A was recorded, therefore, the case law relied up on by the appellant has no application and the case laws referred by me are squarely applicable in the appellants case. Therefore, I hold that statement recorded under section 133A by the AO is valid and the retraction has no basis and the physical stock available at the time of survey was correct. The AO estimated the value of difference of stock of paddy @ Rs. 800/- per quintal which worked out to Rs. 77,89,600/-. The appellant has not explained the source of the investment at the time of survey or during the appeal proceeding. Therefore, the addition made by the AO amounting t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
