9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1218X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble to substantiate with evidence to the satisfaction of the A.O. regarding the discrepancies. The lower authorities in the instant case appears to have made the addition solely on the basis of the statement recorded during the course of survey instead of examining thoroughly the reconciliation statement filed by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings regarding the difference in the cash found and the difference in the valuation of closing stock - restore the issue to the file of the AO with a direction to thoroughly examine the reconciliation statement filed by the assessee - grounds allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA No.5793/Del/2011 - - - Dated:- 16-4-2019 - Shri R.K. Panda, Accountant Member And Shri Kuldip Singh, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Bharat Bhushan Bhatia And Ms Vijay Laxmi, Advocates For the Revenue : Ms Rinku Singh, Sr. DR ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 29th September, 2011 of the CIT(A)-XXIV, New Delhi, relating to assessment year 2008- 09. 2. Facts of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... valuation of the closing stock. The assessee furnished the details of stock for fabrics as on 17th May, 2007 showing the quantity, rate and amount. It also filed the movement of stock during the period between 01.04.2007 and 17.05.2007. 4. However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the arguments advanced by the assessee. He referred to the statement recorded during the course of survey of one of the partners, namely, Shri Vishal Bhasin wherein he could not explain the differences. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee, the Assessing Officer made addition of ₹ 90,99,967/- being the difference in cash and difference in the valuation of the stock on the date of survey. He accordingly determined the total income of the assessee at ₹ 99,71,560/-. 5. In appeal, the ld.CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds:- 1) That the assessment order passed by the A.O. is bad in law as well as facts of the case. 2) That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other hand, strongly opposed the arguments advanced by the ld. counsel for the assessee and submitted that the submission of the ld. counsel is factually incorrect and wrong. She submitted that physical verification of stock was done in presence of one of its partners Shri Vishal Bhasin along with other employees of the said firm. Further, Shri Ajay Bhasin, another partner of the firm retracted the surrendered amount of Rs. ₹ 90,99,967/-, vide his letter dated 6th September, 2007 which is after four months of survey conducted u/s 133A of the IT Act. He failed to submit any documentary evidence to prove the assessee s contention/disagreement. Even during the assessment proceedings as well as before the CIT(A) the assessee firm failed to submit any documentary evidence to prove the contention of the assessee regarding such discrepancies. Under these circumstances, the order of the CIT(A) should be upheld and the arguments of the ld. counsel for the assessee for setting aside of the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer should be rejected. 7.1 Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Avinash Kumar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... garding the discrepancy in cash and discrepancy in the closing stock. It is his submission that the various withdrawals from the bank on different dates were not entered in the cash book for which all these discrepancies arose. According to him, since the withdrawals from the bank are undisputed therefore, if the same are taken into account, then, there will be no discrepancy at all so far as the cash is concerned. So far as the discrepancy in the valuation of closing stock is concerned, it is the submission of the ld. counsel for the assessee that the stock was taken by the survey team arbitrarily and not in exact quantity and the rate adopted by the Department was also not correct. The generally accepted accounting principles have not been followed for which the discrepancy arose. It is also the submission of the ld. counsel that the statement was recorded under duress and coercion. It is the submission of the ld. DR that the assessee was given adequate opportunity during the course of assessment proceedings and appeal proceedings and it could not justify the huge discrepancies in the cash and closing stock. Therefore, once the assessee has surrendered the amount during the cours ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
