9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 98X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... immediately preceding year. Similarly, there is an increase in the interest to the partners in the year under consideration to the tune of ₹ 3,25,173/- as compared to the immediately preceding assessment year. These figures are undisputed and have also been recorded in the impugned order. It is also an accepted fact that the gross receipts have jumped from ₹ 33,122,988/- in AY 2009-10 to ₹ 43,581,430/- in the year under consideration thus showing a substantial increase of ₹ 10,458,442/- as compared to the immediately preceding assessment year. On such facts, we are of the considered opinion that the contention of the AR that the surrendered amount is subsumed in the gross receipts is to be agreed to. The fall in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e date of survey which was not said to be reflected in the books of accounts at the time of survey. Subsequently, the return of income was filed on 13.10.2010 declaring a total income of ₹ 18,95,580/. The case was picked up for scrutiny under CASS. On perusal of the return of income filed, it was observed by the Assessing Officer that the assessee had not separately declared additional income of ₹ 20 lakh which the partner had agreed to surrender at the time of survey. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the partner of the firm had surrendered an amount of ₹ 20 lakh voluntarily on account of discrepancies pointed out during the course of survey proceedings as well as in view of his inability in explai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an addition of ₹ 22.87 lakh in the building under construction after the date of survey which was done so as to show the surrendered amount as having been spent towards the construction of the building and this amount represented the difference in the valuation of building under construction as per the assessee s admission and as per the estimate by the department. It was further submitted by the Ld. AR that the Assessing Officer had made the impugned addition on the premise that the profit shown by the assessee during the year was only ₹ 18,95,850/- and, therefore, this could not have included the surrendered amount of ₹ 20 lakh and further that the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had also upheld the addition on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssioner of Income Tax (A) as contained in page 4 sub-para (iv) wherein the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has observed that the assessee had failed to identify the entries or receipts in the gross receipts which were claimed to have been entered in the books of accounts on account of surrendered income. It was pointed out that the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has observed that the assessee had failed to establish that the increase in gross receipts was on account of surrendered amount of ₹ 20 lakh and not on account of natural course of business. The Ld. Sr. DR submitted that the assessee s appeal deserved to be dismissed. 5.0 We have heard the rival submissions and have also perused the material on record. Al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
