9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 1078X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red as income for A.Y. 2014-15. If the claim of the assessee is found to be correct on such verification, the Assessing Officer shall delete the addition of the same amount made in the year under consideration as the same would tantamount to double addition. - Appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. - I.T.A. No. 1590/KOL/2019 - - - Dated:- 20-3-2020 - Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-President For the Appellant : Shri Rajeeva Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Jayanta Khanra, JCIT, Sr. D.R. ORDER This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Kolkata dated 04.04.2019 and the solitary issue involved therein relates to the addition made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the ld. CIT(Appeals) on account of the alleged difference in stock found during the course of survey to the extent of ₹ 22,73,052/-. 2. The assessee in the present case is an individual, who is carrying on the business of trading in Marble and Granite under the name and style of his proprietary concern M/s. Radha Marble and Granite. The return of income for the year under consideration w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd the following submission in writing was made on behalf of the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) in support of his case that the addition of ₹ 24,50,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged excess stock found during the course of survey was not sustainable:- That the ld. AO erred in law as well as in facts in making addition as discrepancy in stock inasmuch as in view of the facts and circumstances of the case no such discrepancy exist and no addition was at all called for. The ld. AO made an addition of ₹ 24,50,000/- as difference in stock value between the physical stock and book stock as determined by the survey team. The survey u/s 133A took place on 19th August, 2014 and continued to next morning of 20th August, 2014. The appellant was carrying business during the AY 2015-16 mainly as a Private Limited Company in the name of Radha Marble granite Pvt. Ltd. The survey team determined the value of stock at ₹ 2,34,95,282/- as stated in the question no. 4 or statement recorded on 20th August, 2014, and also on 27th August, 2014, the stock as found recorded in the books of the aforesaid pvt. Ltd. company was ₹ 20,62,49,5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT(Appeals), a further submission was also made on behalf of the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) in writing as under:- (1) The copy of profit and loss account for the FY 2013-14 as on date of survey as recorded by the survey team vide which the profit was ₹ 1664994/- and closing stock as on 31.3.14 was ₹ 22,74,083/- (vide page no. 35 36 of ID Mark evidence no. RGM-13 of the survey team which is enclosed herewith). (2) The copy of the trial balance for the period 1.4.14 to 11.8.14 (as recorded by the survey team on the date of survey vide page no. 8 to 11 of ID mark evidence no. RMG 6 is enclosed. Your honour will find that there was no purchase recorded therein upto date of survey during the period 1.4.14 onward, as the proprietorship firm was not doing the trading business in that period (the business was being carried over in the private limited company namely Radha Marbles Granite P. Ltd.). The survey team valued the physical stock at ₹ 2,34,95,282/-. The stock recorded in the books of the private limited company namely Radha Marbles Granite P. Ltd. was found as ₹ 2,06,24,955/- (vide page ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of ₹ 22,73,052/- for the following reasons given in paragraph no. 3.3 of his impugned order:- 3.3. I have considered the submission of the appellant and perused the relevant assessment records. The business premises was surveyed by the department under section 133A. The appellant during the course of survey had admitted stock discrepancy of ₹ 24,50,000/- and cash discrepancy of ₹ 4,60,000/-. However, in his return of income he had only offered the cash discrepancy of ₹ 4,60,000/- to tax but discrepancy of stock amounting to ₹ 24,50,000/- was not included. The AR of the appellant before the AO and also during appeal proceedings have given the argument that the stock discrepancy of ₹ 24,50,000/- had been disclosed in AY 2014-15. He further submitted that the difference was reduced by ₹ 1,76,948/- as purchase bills were not taken into account in the books and this was explained while recording his statement on 27.8.2014. The AO had not accepted the explanation of the appellant on the ground that there was clear manipulation of books of account for AY 2014-15 and that the appellant in a statement recorded during the course of survey had ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
