9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 1401X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idharlal Sons, HUF for the AYs. 2008-09 and 2009-10, it appears that not only the returns were filed prior o the date of survey, but, the HUF is also generating some amount of income. The balance sheet as on 31/03/08 also shows cash in hand of ₹ 70,000. Therefore, assessee s claim that excess cash actually belong to HUF cannot be out rightly rejected. In the aforesaid view of the matter, considering the fact that assessee s explanation with regard to excess cash is plausible, the addition made cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we delete the same. Estimate gross profit on the alleged suppression of sale - HELD THAT:- No material has been brought to our notice by ld. DR to even remotely indicate assessee has indulged in suppressi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by ld. CIT(A)-III, Hyderabad for the AY 2009-10. 2. Assessee has raised six grounds. Ground Nos. 1 6 being general in nature do not require any specific adjudication. As far as ground No. 2 is concerned, at the outset, ld. AR submitted before us that on the instruction of his client, he does not want to press this ground. Accordingly, ground No. 2 is dismissed as not pressed. 3. In Ground No. 3, assessee has challenged the decision of CIT(A) in confirming the addition of ₹ 77,128. 4. Briefly the facts are, assessee a partnership firm is engaged in the business of trading in gold jewellery. For AY under consideration, assessee filed its return of income on 29/09/2009 declaring total income of ₹ 61,59,930, but, prior t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... during the assessment proceeding also, contention of assessee that excess cash belongs to HUF is only an after thought, hence, cannot be accepted. 7. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the orders of revenue authorities as well as other material on record. There is no dispute to the fact that on physical verification excess cash of ₹ 77,120 was found at the time of survey. AO has treated excess cash as unexplained income of assessee by alleging assessee failed to explain the source of excess cash. However, it is the contention of assessee before ld. CIT(A) as well as before us that excess cash found at the time of survey belong to partners of HUF. On perusal of the returns filed electronically by Giridharl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ked by assessee prior to survey and post survey. He, therefore, called upon assessee to explain why the sales for the post survey period shall not be taken at par with the pre survey period by extrapolation method. In response to the query raised by AO, it was submitted by assessee that there is no suppression of sales by assessee as it is regularly submitting VAT returns. It was submitted, because of ill health of the managing partner, who is head of the family, other partners were unable to concentrate much in business after survey. It was also submitted, due to survey business was affected and also because of huge rise in market rate sales decreased after the date of survey. Thus, it was submitted by assessee that there is no need to est ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the form of excess stock has already been surrendered during the course of survey and added back by the appellant. Therefore, with regard to the extrapolation of sale and the excess sale calculated by the AO, the only addition which is to be made is with respect to gross profit. The AO is directed to calculate the gross profit shown by the appellant and made an addition of that percentage on the excess sale. The appellant will get relief accordingly. 11. The ld. AR more or less reiterating the submissions made before the departmental authorities submitted that neither at the time of survey nor during the assessment proceeding, the department has brought any material on record to establish suppression of sales by assessee. Merely becaus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... survey proceeding or even during assessment proceeding, any evidence/material has come to the possession of the department which can establish suppression/manipulation of sale by assessee. It is very much evident, the only reason for estimating the sales for post survey period is because the sales for the months of November to March are much less than the sales booked for the months of April to October. Though, it may be a fact that such variation in sales may raise a suspicion in the mind of AO with regard to sales disclosed during the post survey period, but, such suspicion, however strong may be cannot take the place of evidence. No material has been brought to our notice by ld. DR to even remotely indicate assessee has indulged in supp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
