9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 33X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed duly sworn affidavit dated 06.11.2024. On the contrary, the Ld. D.R. refuted the claim of the Assessee. Considering the delay as miniscule and the reason stated for causing the delay as bonafide and genuine, the delay of 5 days is condoned. 3. Coming to the merit of the case, it is observed that a survey action u/s 133A of the Act was conducted in the case of the Assessee on 22.01.2018, wherein the statement of Shri Chandrakanth Ramanna Shetty, one of the partners of the firm, was recorded, who has admitted that the diary recovered during survey operation pertains to Hotel Deepak. Shri Chandrakanth Ramanna Shetty made the voluntary declaration of income of Rs. 22,51,948/- on total sales of Rs. 1,08,80,197/-, however, in pursuance to survey operation, by filling its return of income on 30.08.2018 declared its total income at Rs. 12,32,100/-. 4. Subsequently, the case of the Assessee was selected for scrutiny through CASS and accordingly statutory notices were issued to the Assessee and vide notice dated 21.12.2020 u/s 142(1) of the Act, the Assessee was asked to explain "as to why the difference amount of Rs. 10,19,848/- should not be added in the total income of the Assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m of reduction in profit amount of Rs. 10,19,848/- and hope that your honours will consider the above facts positively and do the needful. Further, we would also like to inform your honours that no deduction on account of interest and remuneration of partners is being claimed by us separately while declaring taxable income of our firm." 6. The AO though considered the reply of the Assessee, however, not found the same acceptable mainly on the following reasons: Reasons/Facts "(i) During the course of survey proceedings, on going through dairy "SMART" found and impounded, the partner of the assessee firm Shri Chandrakant Ramanna Shetty in his statement recorded on oath has declared profit of Rs 22,51,948/- on total sales of Rs 1,08,80,197/- after claiming expenses of Rs. 86,28,249/-. He has further stated the firm will not be claiming interest and remuneration to the partners from the above profit. Further, no expenses will be claimed on the above including depreciation. Therefore, it is established total expenses of the assessee firm of the FY 2017-18 is Rs. 86,28,249/-. The bills submitted by the assessee, found that the majority of the bills pertains to period prior to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rant business. Pursuant to the survey action u/s. 133A of the Act conducted in the business premises of the assessee dated 22.01.2018, the partner of the assessee firm Shri Chandrakant Ramanna Shetty made a voluntary declaration of Rs. 26,27,872/- on the total sales of Rs. 1,30,15,820/-. The assessee filed its return of income dated 30.03.2018, declaring total income of Rs. 19,52,370/-. Subsequent to that, the assessment order dated 29.11.2019 was passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act determining the total income of Rs. 26,27,872/- by making the addition of Rs. 6,75,502/-. 6. The assessee preferred an appeal as against the assessment order before the ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the said addition made by the A.O. 7. Further aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 8. The ld. DR for the assessee contended that the addition was made on the basis of the statement of Shri Chandrakant Ramanna Shetty, partner of the assessee firm who had made voluntary declaration of income of the impugned income. The ld. DR further contended that the diary found during survey operation contended the total expenses which amount to Rs. 1,03,87,948/-, and that the impugned expenses pertaining to VAT payme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation which contained the details pertaining to sale and expenses incurred by the assessee firm. 10. From the above observation, we are of the considered view that ground no. 2 raised by the assessee challenging the impugned addition as only on the basis of the statement recorded u/s. 133A of the Act does not hold good in our opinion. It is pertinent to point out that the A.O. has considered the statement made by the partner of the assessee firm which was further corroborated by the diary found at the premises of the assessee during the survey operation, is justifiable to hold that the impugned addition was not merely based upon the statement recorded u/s. 133(6) of the Act but was also corroborated with material evidences. On this note, we find no merit in allowing ground no. 2 raised by the assessee. Hence, ground no. 2 is dismissed. 11. Ground no.1 pertains to the income declared u/s. 44AD of the Act at a percentage of turnover which is higher than the percentage prescribed u/s. 44AD of the Act. It is observed that the contention of the assessee is that it had declared higher profit than the percentage specified u/s. 44AD of the Act which is 8%, whereas the assessee has decl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
