TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 1044X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ck in the books maintained in the software - as argued AO should not have merely relied upon sworn statement but should have made additional efforts in proving that the findings of survey were right. HELD THAT:- From the facts, it emerges that physical stock was taken at selling price whereas the stock in the books of accounts was being reflected at cost price. Therefore, the physical stock was required to be adjusted for GST component as well as for Gross Profit component to make the two items comparable. The assessee furnished necessary workings in this regard during the course of assessment proceedings which could not be controverted by Ld. AO. No defect has been pointed out by Ld. AO in assessee s workings. No quantitative differ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is erroneous on facts of the case and in law. 2. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.4,15,48,917/- made towards excess physical stock during the survey and directing to assess only Rs.3,69,139/-, being Gross profit on stock difference as per the working given by the assessee during the assessment proceedings. 2.1. The CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the assessee had not made any claim during the survey that the physical stock value of 15,14,64,938/- included GST and GP component. The assessee had not provided detailed item wise reconciliation neither at the time of survey nor during assessment proceedings. 2.2. The CIT(A) erred in relying on the method adopted by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... source for purchase of stock was not explained to the satisfaction of the AO, the AO rightly invoked the provisions of Sec. 69 and calculated tax as per the provisions of Sec. 115BBE of the Act. As is evident, the sole issue that arises for our consideration is addition of excess physical stock as found during the course of survey. 2. The Ld. CIT-DR supported the findings given by the survey team and assailed the findings of Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT-DR submitted that impugned addition was based on stock variation found during survey proceedings. the Ld.AR, on the other hand, submitted that impugned order is based on reconciliation filed by the assessee which duly explained the alleged discrepancy in the variation in stock. Having he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... did not furnish any evidence for GST component and accepted the valuation made at the time of survey. The assessee did not raise any objection nor furnished any evidence to justify the valuation of stock. Finally, the amount of Rs.415.48 Lacs was added to income of the assessee as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act which would be taxable at rates prescribed u/s 115BBE. Appellate Proceedings 4.1 The Ld. CIT(A) concurred with the assessee s submissions that AO did not bring on record any specific material to disprove the contentions and arguments of the assessee. Further, Ld. AO should not have merely relied upon sworn statement but should have made additional efforts in proving that the findings of survey were right. 4.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rvey. However, in the statement recorded during survey, the assessee demanded more time to reconcile the two components. The same was done at the time of assessment proceedings. Obviously, the onus was on Ld. AO to controvert the working of the assessee which was not done. 6. The Ld. CIT(A), in our considered opinion, clinched the issue in correct perspective. The deficit in stock could be termed as sales effected but not recorded in the books of account. The Ld. CIT(A) has already estimated gross profit against the same and sustained the addition to that extent which is quite appropriate on the facts and circumstances of the case. The same has rightly been held to be business income of the assessee. We concur with the adjudication of Ld ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|