9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 304X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ectrical goods. In this case, Department had conducted survey u/s 133A of the Act on 21.11.2012 wherein the discrepancy with respect to excess stock and excess cash was found. Assessee had voluntarily agreed for the additional income of Rs. 5 lakhs in addition to the regular income. Assessee thereafter in the return of income filed electroncially for A.Y. 2013-14 declared the total income of Rs. 4,86,290/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 11.03.2016 and the total income was determined at Rs. 11,06,290/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A), who vide order dated 06.03.2018 (in appeal No.Nsk/CIT(A)- 1/715/2015-16) dismissed th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... solely on the basis of the declaration made in the statement u/s 133A was not justified in law. 4. The learned CIT(A) further erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,20,000/- made by estimating household expenses without appreciating that the assessee had already declared returned income of Rs. 4.86 lacs which was more than enough to explain the source of household expenditure and hence, the above addition made on the basis of presumption and surmises was not justified in law." 3. All the grounds being inter-connected are considered together. 4. AO noted that during the course of survey u/s 133A of the Act discrepancy with regard to discrepancy in stock of Rs. 11,69,932/- and excess cash of Rs. 70,462/- was found. Assessee had vol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... course of survey does not carry any evidentiary value and for which he placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s. S. Khadar Khan Son reported in 300 ITR 157. He further submitted that apart from making the addition of Rs. 5 lakhs, AO has also made addition of Rs. 1,20,000/- on account of low household expenses which is also not based on evidence. He therefore submitted that addition be deleted. He alternatively submitted that when the addition has already been made of Rs. 5 lakhs, further addition of Rs. 1,20,000/- is uncalled for, more so as there is no basis for its addition and therefore the addition be deleted. Ld. D.R. on the other hand supported the order of AO and Ld.CIT(A). 6. I have heard th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
