9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1672X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n account of Land owners who sold their land to the assessee company and they had received monies over and above the documented price. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and modify the above ground raised, any other grounds at the time of proceedings before the Hon ble Tribunal which may pleased be granted. 3. The Assessing Officer has made addition of ₹ 39,68,039/- on account of unaccounted investment in land. During the A.Y. 2005- 06, 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10, the assessee had purchased land costing ₹ 39,68,039/-, ₹ 11,20,245/-, ₹ 92,040/- and ₹ 11,76/227/- respectively. The Assessing Officer observed that in post search enquiries made, the persons who sold land to the other concerns ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e used the powers under section 131 to enforce the attendance of witness, but he did not chose to do so. Sixteen land owners in the Trust cases, one land owner in the case of Shri Sanjay Ghodawat, individual and Ghodawat Industries India Pvt. Ltd. and three land owners in the case of Ghodawat Foods Industry Pvt. Ltd. has stated that they had received monies over and above the documented price. The Assessing Officer concluded that the assessee has also paid an equal amount of unaccounted cash, over and above the price shown as land purchased in the books of account, therefore made the addition in every case of land purchase. Though in the real estate transactions there is a role of on money. But it could not be said that each of every real e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ir statement was given to the assessee, the assessee did not deny these transactions. Hence, addition made to that extent was confirmed which is not subject matter before. In view of above, we are not inclined to interfere in findings of CIT(A) because addition based on presumption cannot be sustained. We uphold the same. This take cares of similar issue arose in the A.Ys.2007-08 and 2008- 09. Facts being similar, so following the same reasoning, order of CIT(A) needs no interference from our side. We uphold the same. 4. In ITA for the A.Y. 2009-10, other issue is that of addition made on account of excess stock found on various accounts as under: Valuation of items in Annexure-A3 Rs.7,41,571/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the actual stock of 4552.010 MT the Valuation of items in Annexure-A3 ₹ 7,41,571/- Valuation of stock of soya seeds ₹ 19,98,507/- Excess stock of crude refined oil ₹ 25,39,568/- Valuation of stock on stores ₹ 31,62,510/- Valuation of stock in silos ₹ 39,30,120/- Purchase of tin plates ₹ 34,72,238/- stock of soya is taken of 4756.440 MT. Thus there was a difference of 204.43 MT arrived at by the survey party to which the rate of ₹ 19552/MT was applied and the value of difference came to ₹ 39,97,015/-. It was explained that while entering the quantity of soya seed in the books, certain deductions were made on various counts from the gross weight. Further it was stated that the weight taken p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the factory is run by professional workers and administrative staff. In order to maintain a strict vigil over production, the stock of finished products is taken at the end of every shift. This is done also to stop any pilferage and to have adequate control over production. On the date of survey action, the book stock indicated the stock taken at 8 a.m. whereas the survey party took the stock of finished products later during the day when production of various refined oil had taken place and consumption of the crude oil had also taken place. Accordingly, the assessee provided a chart of production and consumption during the day and as evidence, provided the log sheets pertaining to the same. CIT(A) having gone through the same observed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; 58,22,510/-. The stock of work in progress provided by the assessee was ₹ 31,24,524/-. Hence, according to the calculation provided by the assessee, the stock of stores should be ₹ 26,97,996/- against which the value of stock of stores furnished was ₹ 26.60 lakhs. Thus, there was a small infirmity of ₹ 37,996-/-. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer was directed to find out from records whether the work in progress has been shown at ₹ 31.25 lakhs or not. If the contention is found to be correct then, the addition shall be restricted to ₹ 37,996/- only or else, the addition will be of ₹ 31,62,510/-. This reasoned factual finding of CIT(A) need no interference from our side. We uphold the same. 9. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
