9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 482X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of the unaccounted sales. From the impugned letter, it is revealed that it starts with the words in addition to the above . These words suggest that the additions of ₹ 2 crores has been made by the assessee besides the disclosure of ₹ 33,50,310/- only. Moreover, we find that the assessee failed to provide the primary documents to appreciate whether the cash transactions is inclusive of unaccounted sales. Therefore, we are not inclined to concur with the arguments of the learned counsel for the assessee. Hence, in the given facts and circumstances, particularly in the absence of the primary documents, we are not inclined to interfere in the finding of the authorities below. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed. - ITA No. 40/AHD/2016 (Asstt. Year: 2010-11) - - - Dated:- 23-3-2022 - SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessee by: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.R Revenue by: Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr.D.R ORDER PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the Assessee against the order of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Ld. CIT(A) is futile infructuous, therefore, eventually deserves to be deleted. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or withdraw any ground or grounds of appeal either before or during the course of hearing of the appeal. 3. The only effective ground of appeal raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition made by the AO for ₹ 33,50,310/- representing the gross profit on the deficit of stock. 4. The facts in brief are that the assessee in the present case is a private limited company and engaged in the business of manufacturing of cold process castor oil and other byproducts. There was a survey operation under section 133A of the Act on the premises of the assessee and its associate namely Banpal Agrotech Private Ltd. Dated 23rd July 2009. In the course of survey operation, a deficit of stock for ₹ 5,58,38,500/- was found and the assessee agreed to make an offer of the gross profit amounting to ₹ 33,50,310/- to tax on the assumption that such deficit of the stock has been sold outside the books of accounts. 4.1 Besides the above, the assessee has also agreed to offer an income of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also submitted by the assessee that the director in the statement recorded at the time of survey has categorically submitted that the disclosure of ₹ 2 crores includes stock discrepancy, unaccounted sales and other miscellaneous deficiencies. Thus as per the assessee no separate addition is warranted. 6.2 However, the learned CIT (A) rejected the contention of the assessee by observing that the assessee itself has admitted in the statement to offer such amount of gross profit to tax which was not retracted. Accordingly there was no reason for the assessee for not offering such amount of gross profit in the income tax return. 6.3 As per the learned CIT (A) the disclosure of ₹ 2 crores was representing the addition pertaining to the peak transactions of ₹ 3,30,88,569/- in assessment year 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2009-10. Accordingly the contention of the assessee that the amount of gross profit has already been covered up in the disclosure made for ₹ 2 crores is not acceptable. 7. The learned CIT(A) also observed as under: The Appellant has also raised additional pleas that excess stock found during the course of survey is already considered in subse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat addition of ₹ 2 crores is distinct and independent to the amount of gross profit of ₹ 33,50,310/- on the unaccounted sales which was also agreed by the assessee during the survey operation. Admittedly, the appeal before us has been filed by the assessee and therefore the onus lies upon the assessee to establish that the amount of gross profit of ₹ 33,50,310/- is part and parcel of the disclosure made by the assessee for ₹ 2 crores based on the documentary evidence. At the time of hearing, a question was posed to the learned AR to draw our attention on the documents to demonstrate the cash transactions based on which the disclosure of ₹ 2 crores was made. The purpose of verifying such documents was to see whether it contains any transactions of the unaccounted sales. However, the assessee failed to produce the same before us. In other words, the assessee has not discharged its onus by producing the primary documents in support of its contention. The primary onus lies on the person who asserts the preposition and not on the person who denies. 11.2 Moving further, the learned AR at the time of hearing drew our attention on the letter dated NIL writ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
