9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1433X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... find that the assessee has explained that cash was found short as it was given to various parties as advance on the date of survey, which remained to be entered in to cashbook, and it was accounted for next day. We further are of the view that no addition can be made on account of shortage of cash. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT (A), accordingly, same is upheld. This grounds of appeal is therefore, dismissed. - I.T.A No. 1216/RJT/2010 - - - Dated:- 26-11-2018 - C .M. Garg, Judicial Member And O. P. Meena, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri D.M. Rindani, CA For the Revenue : Shri Praveen Verma, Sr. D.R. ORDER PER O. P. MEENA, AM 1. This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-IV, Rajkot dated 05.07. 2010 pertaining to Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. Ground no. 1 states that the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition made by the AO of ₹ 58,54,592 on account of stock difference found during survey. 3. The AO has observed that during the course of survey proceedings carried out on 20.09.2005, stock difference between phy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... count was sustained. 7. The next addition of ₹ 4,13,580 was made by the AO on account of Krispi Vanaspati of 20 Kg by 678 tins, the AO discussed this in para 5.2 ( c) of his order. The contention of the assessee in this regard was not found acceptable as the assessee was unable to explain shortage and hence, addition of ₹ 4,13,580 was confirmed. 8. The next addition of ₹ 55,550 made as per para 5.2. (d) of assessment order was not found explained hence, CIT (A) sustained the said addition. 9. The next addition of ₹ 136 tins of Ranjit Gold Coin Vanaspati of ₹ 73,440 made by the AO vide para 5.3 of assessment order, was found to be explained by the assessee and same was verified by the AO during the course of remand proceedings. Hence, said addition was deleted. 10. The next addition relates to addition of ₹ 41,850 of 1240 pouches of 1 litre of Vanaspati , it was explained that the AO has erroneously considered this to be kg of pouch which in facts of 1 litre of pouch, which has been already accounted for in production of 8980 pouches on the date of survey. Therefore, CIT (A) observed that the appellant has already shown 8980 pouches, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be excess by 1.12 MT. Therefore, addition made on account of shortage of stock of 107.875 MT of RBD Palm oil is no ledger survive, hence, addition of ₹ 33,54,913 was deleted. 15. The next addition of ₹ 1,68,521 relates to excess stock of 45.693 MT of imported soyabean refund oil as discussed in para 5.10(a) of his order. It was explained that that there was production of 28.860 MT during the day which has been duly accounted for in the books of accounts as reflected at Paper Book Page No. 49 . Therefore, difference comes to ₹ 5,82,654. Further, the value of difference in reconciliation comes to ₹ 2,34,468 and not ₹ 4,67,266 as stated by the AO. The CIT (A) observed that the appellant has already accounted for production of 28.860 MT of this product in the books of accounts which also been verified by the AO during the course of remand report proceedings, which has been found to be correct. As per remand report of the AO, excess of 16.833 remains to be unexplained. Therefore, out of excess stock of 45.693 MT stands resolved to the extent of 28.860 MT and only balance excess of 16.833 MT remains unexplained. In view of this, the addition was restricte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee could not explained the same properly hence, the AO made addition of the same. However, CIT (A) has deleted the addition of ₹ 58,54,592 after obtaining and examining the remand report from the AO . Therefore, the ld. Sr. D.R. relies on finding of the assessee. 20. Per contra, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the AO has made addition of ₹ 83,98,469. The CIT (A) has called for a remand report from the AO and based on the same has confirmed the addition of ₹ 25 Lakhs on which the assessee has not filed any second appeal. The CIT (A) after considering remand report from the AO in which the AO has verified the difference of stock as per reconciliation filed by the assessee. Therefore, CIT (A) has deleted the addition of ₹ 58,54,592. Hence, the CIT (A) has correctly deleted the addition made by the AO on incorrect facts and not considering the explanation provided by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings. Hence, same may be upheld. 21. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. Ongoing through the findings of Ld. CIT (A), as mentioned in the above para of this order, we find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
