9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 722X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dered to be the final figure of results disclosed therein. On the contrary if the profit figures as shown in the statement are aggregated, the same are less than the profits disclosed in the accounts. All sales are duly recorded in the books, duly supported by sales bills and delivery challans, reflected in excise records and in monthly excise returns and in RG 1 register. Production is duly supported by production register and monthly production statement by factory and entry in RG 1 register. All purchases are duly supported with GRN, Delivery challan of party and transport LR copy, Purchase bills, Entry in form IV of excise reflecting total purchases for the month. All purchases are recorded in purchase inward register at the time of arrival. In form IV, assessee company provides details of opening stock, purchases, consumption and closing stock on monthly basis to excise department. Assessee is filing monthly excise returns, excise audit and checks are carried, out by the excise department on regular intervals. In all these excise audit and check not a single time it was found out by the excise department that there is any variation in book records and factory records. There ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rded in books of account. CIT(A) has already deleted the addition based on the factual position narrated above. Considering these facts addition on account of discrepancy in stock found between physical inventory taken on date of search and stock recorded in books of accounts should also be deleted. Addition of bogus purchases made on the basis of statements recorded during the course of Search - inflation of purchases - HELD THAT:- As on careful consideration of entire details as well as purchase register produced for relevant months, bank statements and ledger account of Gautam Enterprise, it is found that appellant has not included purchase rom Gautam Enterprise in its Books of Account. Further, in the ledger account of Gautam Enterprise, only financial transaction pertaining to such sum is recorded which suggests that funds received by said party from bank has been transmitted to appellant and after certain period such amount has been paid by appellant through its regular bank account. Thus, argument of appellant regarding accommodation entry, appears to be correct and as appellant has not claimed any purchase from Gautam Enterprise as expenditure while computing Profit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i CIT(DR) ORDER PER DR. A. L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These are cross appeals. Four appeals filed by the Assessee and four appeal filed by Revenue, pertaining to Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11, are directed against the separate orders passed by the ld.CIT(A) which turn arise out of separate assessment orders passed by the ld.Assessing Officer under section 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the Act ]. 2. Since, the issues involved in all these eight appeals are common and identical and these appeals relate to the same assessee, for different assessment years, therefore, these have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. Although, these appeals filed by the Revenue and Assessee contain multiple grounds of appeals. However, at the time of hearing, we have carefully perused all the grounds raised by the Revenue as well as by the Assessee. Most of the grounds raised by the Revenue as well as assessee, are either academic in nature or contentious in nature. However, to meet the end of justice, we confine ourselve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (v) Deleted the addition of ₹ 27,67,500/- being bogus purchases made on the basis of statements recorded during the course of Search. (vi) Deleted the addition of ₹ 2,75,00,000/- being unaccounted expenses and sales realization made on the basis of entries in the seized loose papers. 5. Concise and common grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, assessment year wise, are as follows: (1).Disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, read with Rule 8D, assessment year wise, are as follows: a) Assessment Year 2007-08 ₹ 5,12,276/- b) Assessment Year 2008-09 ₹ 6,99,230/- c) Assessment Year 2009-10 ₹ 7,19,687/- d) Assessment Year 2010-11 ₹ 6,29,794/- (2).Disallowance on account of cash profit earned by the assessee on unaccounted sale comprising of undisclosed sale. a) Assessment Year 2009-10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ments of the Assessing Officer. The ld.CIT(A) has adjudicated the issue relating to cash profit and other issues with help of the material available in the assessment records, written submissions of the assessee, and based on the findings of the Assessing Officer. Therefore, we do not find any iota of additional evidence. Learned DR for the Revenue has fairly agreed that no additional evidences were submitted by the assessee, during the appellate proceedings, before the ld CIT(A). Therefore, based on this factual position, the Ground No.1 raised by the Revenue in assessment years, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11, are dismissed. 8. Common and concise Ground No.2 raised by the Revenue and Common and concise Ground No.2 raised by the Assessee are identical and similar therefore, we adjudicate them together. Both the grounds are reproduced below for ready reference: Ground No.2 raised by Revenue (ii) Deleting the addition made on account of cash profit earned by the assessee on unaccounted sale as reflected in the documents seized from the office premises of the assessee. a) Assessment Year 2007-08 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 20533 6220192 EXPORT SALES 20995 477455 EXPORT ENTITLEMENTS 1612 1318204 Direct Export Expenses 4449 5379443 NET EXPORT SALES (After Rebate etc.) 18157 63201577 TOTAL SALES 20307 30160 MISC. INCOME 10 63231737 TOTAL INCOME 20316 712014 PROFIT / LOSS BEFORE DEPRE. 229 1950000 DEPRECIATION 627 -1237986 POFIT / LOSS AFTER DEPRE. -398 1474396 NET PR. FROM TURBINE 236410 TOTAL ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9;, chem., sales, com, figures of ₹ 1106.795, 598.750, 1041.1033, 151.145, respectively are mentioned and aggregate of such figures comes to 2987.723 and same is mentioned under the column head 'cash' for ₹ 28,97,723. Thereafter, Assessing Officer has observed that word 'cash' or 'Dep' denotes cash profit earned by the Company not recorded in the Books of Account but mentioned in monthly report prepared by assessee company. The assessing officer's argument for making impugned addition in A.Y. 2007-2008 to 2010-11 is similar. The Assessing officer has referred to various seized material found during the course of search which includes monthly profit loss account from 1st April 2006. It was held by Assessing Officer that on the bottom of such monthly profit loss account, under the head of Quantitative Details in Closing various Disputes , against the description of raw materials', 'Chem', 'sales ac' and ' com' , certain figures are reflected which is nothing but cash profit generated by assessee not shown in Profit loss account. The Assessing Officer has also referred to certain loose papers found (like Page ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it, so the total profit in MIS sheets, which is treated as cash profit, by the Assessing Officer, derived from cash sales, excess expenses and sale of solid waste and therefore assessing officer has made addition to the tune of ₹ 58,99,386/-. 11. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld.CIT(A) who has restricted the addition made by the Assessing Officer to the tune of ₹ 4,84,878/- and deleted the addition of ₹ 54,14,508/- [₹ 58,99,386 - ₹ 4,84,878]. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before us against the addition, deleted at ₹ 54,14,508/- and Assessee is in cross appeal before us against the addition sustained by ld CIT(A) to the tune of ₹ 4,84,878/-. 12. Shri Sreenivas T. Bidari, Learned DR for the Revenue, took the Bench through assessment order and stated that order passed by the assessing officer is quite reasonable. Thus, ld DR has primarily reiterated the stand taken by the Assessing Officer, which we have already noted in our earlier para and is not being repeated for the sake of brevity. 13. On the other hand, Shri P.M.Jagasheth, Learned Counsel of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act and no addition has been made in respect of stocks, purchases and / or sales. No loose papers have been found at the time of search in respect of sales made to any parties from whom any amount is recoverable or realized in cash. Considering these facts, ld Counsel prays that no addition for unaccounted cash generation, as made by Assessing Officer, is called for. Therefore, ld.Counsel pleads that there is no any unaccounted cash profit earned by the assessee company and hence addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) needs to be deleted. 15. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the ld CIT(A) and other materials brought on record. We note that ld Counsel has explained the Bench about the nature of loose sheets, on the basis of which Assessing Officer has made addition and the mode of preparation of such MIS sheet, which only gives the estimated profit and argued that actual profit as per audited accounts is always more than what is reflected in the sum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und that excess consumption of raw material was debited in books of account to generate cash profit as worked out in the MIS sheets for A.Y. 2007-08 to 2010-11. In view of the findings of the Assessing Officer it is necessary to find out and conclude whether the assessee has produced goods and made sales outside books of account or whether excess consumption of raw material is debited in books of account or any raw material has been sold outside books of account and consumption is shown in books of account. The above aspects, after analyzing the seized records, comparing with the audited books of account, the following finding is given: (i) From the month-wise MIS Sheets with progressive details of production and sales, the quantitative details of production and sales and also the details from audited accounts are as under: A.Y. Relevant page No. of seized material Production in MT as per seized material Sales quantity as per seized material Production as per audited annual account Sales as per audited annual accounts 2007-08 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cost basis). The adjustment of dispatches is made as in the Costing Department and cost is assigned on production basis whereas in MIS Sheets, it is related to dispatches (sales). Therefore, this reconciliation is between the profit computed by Costing Department and profit as per MIS but same is not compared with profit as per annual accounts, which is higher in all the three Assessment Years. In view of this fact, for finding of any suppressed profit, comparison has to be made with profit arrived at in the MIS Sheet and financial accounts, on the basis of which return of income is filed. 18. The ld CIT(A) observed that MIS data includes profit from turbine, which is notional profit on per unit production of electricity. This profit is worked out to find out the notional profit which is not accounted for separately in financial accounts. With regard to addition made by Assessing Officer for unaccounted sales on the basis of noting of 'sales account' under the head 'quantitative details in closing various disputes', the assessee has submitted the bill-wise, date-wise, party-wise, month-wise amount of disputed sales whereas claims have been settled by allowing r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tive evidence. On the contrary, the assessee has proved beyond doubt that all the disputed sales were duly recorded in sales ledger which is discussed in detail above. On comparison of gross sales recorded in audited financial accounts with the gross sales recorded in MIS Sheets, which also includes disputed sales noted under the head 'quantitative details in closing various disputes', it can be seen that gross sales as per audited annual accounts are more than gross sales noted in MIS sheets. A.Y. Local sales as per MIS sheet Disputed sale considered by Assessing Officer as unaccounted sale Total gross sales as per MIS sheet Gross sales as per audited annual accounts 2007-08 851969212 25119338 877088550 886218220 2009-10 1241895070 55864348 1297759418 1301977265 2010-11 (3 months) 372158606 17223749 389382355 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ous provisional figures, notional profit such as profit from Turbine etc, used for captive power generation. From these monthly loose paper sheets, year wise summary was prepared. As actual profit, as per audited accounts, is always more than, what is reflected in the summary sheet prepared year wise, from the loose monthly working sheets. We note that various loose papers containing; the data of the monthly profitability of the company are prepared on estimated basis for want of the final accounts due to various variations in purchase, sales, expenses, stock and depreciation. These loose papers are merely prepared for instant information purposes on various dates and time in order to ascertain the current position of the company and to act for future operations of the company. These reports are also prepared to give the management an insight of various unsettled issues relating to RM differences and disputed sales and expenses etc. The figure of production shown in MIS tally with the excise records as well as the disclosure made in the financial accounts because the production figure are readily available from the excise records. These MIS reports by no means can be considered to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for ready reference: iii)Deleting addition of ₹ 2 lakhs made on account of inflation of purchases without considering the fact that the suppliers were not maintaining the stock register and their books of accounts were rejected at the time of assessment under section 153C of the Income Tax Act which has also been confirmed in the appeal. a) Assessment Year 2007-08 ₹ 2,00,000/- b) Assessment Year 2008-09 ₹ 2,00,000/- c) Assessment Year 2009-10 ₹ 2,00,000/- d) Assessment Year 2010-11 ₹ 2,00,000/- 26. Brief facts qua the issue are that during the assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer has observed that two persons were assessed under Section 153C of the Act with the Circle of assessee and during the course of assessment proceedings of such persons, it was found that they were not maintaining the stock register and were unable to identify all their suppliers. The books ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat Concise and Common Ground No.4 raised by the Revenue and Concise and Common Ground No.4 raised by the Assessee are identical and similar therefore, we adjudicate them together. Concise and Common Ground No.4 raised by the Revenue is as follows (iv)Deleted the addition of ₹ 28,45,762/- out of total addition of ₹ 53,09,056/- made on account of difference in stock. Concise and Common Ground No.4 raised by the Assessee is as follows (4).Addition on account of discrepancy of ₹ 24,63,294/- ( ₹ 53,09,056- ₹ 28,45,762) in stock found between physical inventory taken on date of search and stock record. (This ground relates to assessment year 2010-11). 31. Brief facts of the issue in dispute are stated as under. Assessing Officer has made comparison of stock as per Books of Account and stock as per physical inventory found during the course of search, as under: Stock as per Books Stock as per physical inventory Difference Items In qty (In kgs) Value in Rs. In Qty Kgs. Value i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of appellant cannot be accepted as during the course of search physical stock of finished goods was taken with the help of appellant's own employees and signature of employees was obtained. These employees were well versed with the location, variety of finished goods, different grading of finished goods and also the weighment system followed by the appellant company. The Authorised Officer and employees of the Department have noted the quantity, rate, and value of the finished goods as per description explained by the employees of the appellant company. There was no objection raised on behalf of the appellant company regarding quality/grade of finished goods, weighment and the rate applied in the inventorised finished goods during the search and post-search enquiry. As physical stock found during the course of search was less than stock recorded in books of accounts, it suggests that appellant has sold finished goods out of its books of account. During the course of assessment proceedings or in appellate proceedings, appellant has not brought any admissible evidence to reconcile the difference between stock as per books of account and stock as per physical inventory taken dur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he statement showing major chemicals not considered by Authorised Officer as submitted by appellant is reproduced at para - 8.3 herein above. On careful consideration of detailed submissions made by appellant and copy of panchnama prepared at the time of search, it is observed that though against few stocks quantity as per books of account was mentioned, corresponding figure of stock found during the course of search was mentioned as NIL which in opinion, of appellant reflects stock lying in factory premises not considered by authorized officer. It is not the case that, for particular item of chemical, physical stock was found as well as book stock was also found which has resulted into difference in quantity but difference is on account of no physical stock taken for certain products of chemical as pointed out by the AR. The argument of appellant seems to be partial correct as even certain chemical was purchased just prior to 4 to 5 days before the date of search, same was not considered by authorized officer while considering physical stock. As search was carried out on 16th July, 2009, the benefit of non-taking of stock of chemical for purchase made during the month of June and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The details of such items of chemical is summarised in tabular chart at para 8.3 herein above. I have carefully considered the panchnama prepared at the time of search, purchase bills for relevant chemical purchases as well as working of landing cost of such material computed by appellant alongwith supporting evidences and the contention of appellant that there is no difference in quantity of chemical recorded in books of account and stock as per inventory prepared at the time of search is found correct. Further, authorized officer has adopted the basic value from purchase bills while computing value of stock at the time of search but has not increased such value by other expenditure like sales tax, freight, insurance etc born by appellant on such purchase from bringing material at factory premises. The working adopted by authorized officer and considered by Assessing Officer is not proper as valuation of chemical is required to be considered at landing cost and not the basis value and if such value is added to the basic value adopted by authorized officer, appellant is entitled to relief of ₹ 5,07,211. In view of aforesaid discussion, appellant is entitled to relief o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stock having average weight of 900 per bundlge, 110 bales having weight of 555 per bundle and 51 bales having weight of 615 per bale and for aggregate of 770 bales, stock has been computed at 6,40,513 resulting into shortage of stock. In this case, though appellant has purchased same product with same seller being V.G. Rec, Amsterdam, weight per bale is different which is clearly reflected in purchase bills as well as other documentary evidences. Similar is the case for other types of waste products. These evidences support the explanation of appellant that for each product, standard weight per bale cannot be adopted but stock as on the date of search is required to be considered after adopting actual weight per bill is found correct and this seems to be bonafide mistake on part of authorized officer. Even in the present case, there is no difference in no of bales/bundles found during the course of search and bales already recorded in books of account. Considering the facts of appellant's case as discussed herein above, addition made by Assessing Officer for ₹ 11,17,698 is thus deleted. In the result, ground of appeal raised by appellant for addition of shortage/excess o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s seized, which contain invoice of Gautam Enterprises (Division of Gautham Exim Pvt. Ltd.) dated 03/07/2009, which shows purchase of super white cutting for an amount of ₹ 27,67,500/-. The Assessing Officer has mentioned that in statement of Shri R. Balasubramanian, Chief Executive of M/s Gautam Enterprises, recorded on 24/07/2009, wherein he has admitted that there was no real business transaction and mere accommodation bills have been issued and the funds received has been returned back to Gayatri and Kherani Paper Mills. Therefore, assessing officer was of the view that these purchases are not real therefore, he made addition to the tune of ₹ 27,60,500/-. 37. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assesse carried the matter in appeal before the ld.CIT(A) who has deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. 38. We have heard both the parties. Learned DR for the Revenue has primarily reiterated the stand taken by the Assessing Officer, which we have already noted in our earlier para and is not being repeated for the sake of brevity. On the other hand, ld Counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ank account. Thus, argument of appellant regarding accommodation entry, appears to be correct and as appellant has not claimed any purchase from Gautam Enterprise for ₹ 27,60,500/- as expenditure while computing Profit Loss Account for current assessment year, purchase shown in bill cannot be added to the total income of appellant as bogus purchase more particularly when entire transaction is settled through cheques. Based on this factual position, we are not inclined to accept the contention of the Assessing Officer in any manner and the addition made by Assessing Officer for ₹ 27,60,500/- was rightly deleted by ld CIT(A), therefore, we dismiss the concise and common ground no.5 raised by the Revenue. 40. In the result, Concise and Common ground no.5 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 41. Concise and Common ground no.6 raised by the Revenue is reproduced below for ready reference: (vi) Deleted the addition of ₹ 2,75,00,000/- being unaccounted expenses and sales realization made on the basis of entries in the seized loose papers. 42. Brief facts qua the issue are that during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer has referred to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT(A). During the appellate proceedings, ld CIT(A) has examined the seized documents on the basis of which impugned addition of ₹ 2.75 crores has been made by assessing officer. The Assessing Officer has referred to seized paper being page No. 13 page No. 14 and 19 found during the course of search wherein at the lower portion of page No. 13 under the nomenclature NRI/GSP difference , five figures aggregating to ₹ 1.75 crores have been mentioned and on page No. 14, monthly expenses of ₹ 1 crore (40 lacs+ 20 lacs + 40 lacs) has been mentioned. The Assessing Officer has considered these noting, as unexplained expenditure and sales realisation not offered to tax. On the other hand, assessee has mainly argued that these notings pertaining to ₹ 1.75 crore are for comparison of expenditure between appellant company and NR Paper Industries (NRI) being the company of director's brother and these notings do not reflect any cash expenditure or receipt hence no addition is called for.The ld CIT(A) observed about remaining addition of ₹ 1 crore, it was also argued that there is no unaccounted expenditure but same is fixed expenditure noted on estimate basis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... absence of any other evidence found during the course of search or brought on record by the AO to show that the said expenditure was actually incurred by the assessee, the same cannot be added to the undisclosed income of the assessee by invoking provisions of s. 69C - Assessee explained that the said entries represented estimates made by employees in respect of proposed expenditure - There is no evidence on record to rebut/controvert the said explanation - Additions not sustainable. 46. The ld CIT(A) further relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of CIT V/s Maulik Kumar K. Shah 307 ITR 137, wherein it was held as under: The assessee had constructed certain shops. There was a search at the assessee's premises and a diary was seized in which the assessee had estimated rates of these shops. The assessee had booked/sold 35 shops as on date of search. Because of the difference in rates as mentioned in the seized paper and the books of account, the Assessing Officer calculated the 'on-money' and made addition accordingly. Held that notings in the seized diary found from the premises were the only material on the basis of which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is duplicating page of 14 cannot be accepted. However, on the loose paper found during the course of search, on the basis of which Assessing Officer has made impugned addition shows fixed expenditure which suggest that this paper is prepared for monthly fixed expenditure. In this loose paper details like payment made in cash, name of the party to whom various payments have been made, date of the transaction has not been mentioned which leads to conclusion that this is a dumb document having no financial implication. These entire loose papers nowhere suggests that appellant has made unexplained expenditure or expenditure are paid in cash nor Assessing Officer has brought any other evidence which can prove that these are notings for payment in cash but addition has been made on presumption basis. On careful consideration of entire facts and respectfully following decision referred hereinabove, the remaining addition of ₹ 1 crore is deleted. This way, ld CIT(A) has deleted the entire addition of ₹ 2.75 crore made by the Assessing Officer. We do not find any infirmity in the above findings of ld CIT(A).The conclusions arrived at by the CIT(A) are, therefore, correct and a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lowance under section 14A of the Act, hence no addition should be made. With regards to disallowance under 14A for balance years, Shri P.M.Jagasheth argued that section 14A can not be invoked where no exempt income was earned by the assessee in the relevant assessment year, therefore, he prays the Bench that disallowance under section 14A made by the assessing officer may be deleted. 54. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the Revenue has primarily reiterated the stand taken by the Assessing Officer, which we have already noted in our earlier para and is not being repeated for the sake of brevity. 55. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the ld CIT(A) and other materials brought on record. We note that Assessing Officer has disallowed expenditure u/s 14A of the Act applying rule 8D of the Act. For A.Y. 2007-2008, learned Counsel has argued that no disallowance u/s 14A can be made in current year, as rule 8D is applicable from A.Y. 2008-2009, as held by Hon`ble Bombay High Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 573 (Del), wherein their lordships have held as under: Summary of legal position 37. On a conspectus of Section 153A(1) of the Act, read with provisos thereto, and in the light of the law explained in the aforementioned decisions, the legal position that emerges is as under: i. Once a search takes place under Section 132 of the Act, notice under Section 153 A(1) will have to be mandatorily issued to the person searched requiring him to file returns for six AYs immediately preceding the previous year relevant to the AY in which the search takes place. ii. Assessments and reassessments pending on the date of the search shall abate. The total income for such AYs will have to be computed by the AOs as a fresh exercise. iii. The AO will exercise normal assessment powers in respect of the six years previous to the relevant AY in which the search takes place. The AO has the power to assess and reassess the total income of the aforementioned six years in separate will be only one assessment order in respect of each of the six AYs in which both the disclosed and the undisclosed income would be brought to tax . iv. Although Section 153 A does not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessing officer under section 14A, for assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11. 59. The Concise and Common ground No.3 raised by the assessee is reproduced below for ready reference: (3).Allowed set off of additional income of ₹ 9 crores disclosed in the Return of Income having regard to disclosure made under section 132(4) of the Act based on application thereof in assessment year under appeal. a) Assessment Year 2009-10 b) Assessment Year 2010-11 60. In this ground, assessee prayed that if any disallowance is made, the same should be considered to be included in the ₹ 9 Crores, the disclosure made under section 132(4) of the Act. Ld. Counsel submits that assessee has voluntarily disclosed ₹ 9 crores and Department has not given any telescoping benefit, therefore he contends that in the event, any addition is sustained by the Tribunal, then such addition should be set-off against the voluntarily disclosed amount of ₹ 9 crores. Since we have deleted the entire addition made by the assessing officer the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
