9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 647X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Y") 2018-19. 2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that there is a delay of '42' days in filing of Cross-Objection and pointed out the cause for the delay and pleaded that since the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause, delay may be condoned which reasons/cause, the Ld.DR couldn't contradict. Hence, we condone the delay of '42' days and proceed to admit the Cross-Objection also for adjudication. 3. The main grievance of the Revenue is against the action of the Ld.CIT(A) deleting the additions made by the AO on account of excess stock of Rs. 1,01,77,956/- for AY 2018-19. 4. The brief facts are that the assessee company had filed its return of income (RoI) for AY 2018-19 on 30.09.2018 admitting total income at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich, the assessee replied/explained vide letter dated 18.11.2021 [reproduced by the AO at Page No.3 of the assessment order] the reason for stock difference inter-alia was due to in-advertent, non-integration of the books of accounts of the assessee maintained in 'Tally Accounting Software' with the stock books which resulted in the 'Tally Accounting Software' taking the value of the opening stock as the value of the closing stock by default. And in this regard, pointed out to the AO that since the value of the closing stock (as on 31.03.2017) was not updated in 'Tally Accounting Software' as on the date of survey (13.02.2018), the computerizing books maintained in Tally Software still showed closing-stock on date of survey as that on 31.03 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Managing Director had offered Rs. 80 lakhs while explaining the difference of Rs. 1,01,77,956/- and thereafter, he noted that the assessee didn't honor his commitment by offering Rs. 80 lakhs admitted during the survey proceedings, and didn't accept the assessee's explanation about the difference in stock as due to non-integration of the software (supra), because, the software itself can't make any entry meaning somebody from the assessee's Office had to enter the stock value, etc., and thereafter, he made an addition of Rs. 1,01,77,956/- u/s. 69 of the Act by order dated 07.03.2022. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) who was pleased to delete the same on merits. 7. Aggrieved, the Revenue is before us by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -open the assessment on the ground that the assessee didn't offer additional income found during the survey (difference in stock). The assessee explained/pointed out that while filing RoI on 30.09.2018, the assessee has factored in the excess stock of Rs. 1,01,77,956/- and also brought to the notice of the AO that the books of accounts was maintained by assessee in 'Tally Accounting Software' and since, the stock book were not integrated with the financial records resulted in the 'Tally Accounting Software' taking the value of the opening stock as the value of the closing stock (as on 31.03.2017) by default and since the value of closing stock was not updated in the 'Tally Accounting Software' as on the date of survey the difference in stoc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ke of fact which led him to make offer during survey; and made the addition of Rs. 1,01,77,956/- u/s. 69 of the Act which was deleted by the Ld.CIT(A) by finding that the AO erred in making addition only upon the statement recorded of MD of assessee u/s. 133A of the Act by relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. S. Khader Khan Sons reported in (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Mad) wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that "a statement recorded u/s. 133A(3) of the Act does not have any evidentiary value and any admission made during such statement can't be made the basis of addition" which decision has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in [2012] 352 ITR 480 (SC). The Ld.CIT(A) also found substance in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... show that it included the stock difference of Rs. 1,01,77,956/-. And, since assessee has shown turnover of Rs. 22,82,96,716/- and offered income of Rs. 3,77,13,008/- and has shown net profit @16.46%, the Ld CIT(A) was of the view that the net profit ratio @16.46% couldn't have been achieved by the assessee unless it has included the stock difference of Rs. 1,01,77,956/- which finding is not perverse and is a plausible view. Moreover, the assessee's books are found to be duly audited and the AO didn't reject the books alleging any infirmity, therefore, the impugned action of the Ld.CIT(A), deleting the addition on account of difference in stock, is upheld for the foregoing reasons discussed supra. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal of the Rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
