9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 65X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e I.T. Act being unaccounted expenditure, though the transaction was found recorded in a notebook during the survey and the partner of the firm, Shri Kirtanbhai S. Patel had declared that this is an additional income. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.3,00,000/- being unaccounted investment in building owned by V.M.Enterprise, though the partner of the firm, Shri Kirtanbhai S. Patel had admitted the same as unaccounted income. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in scaling down the addition of Rs.25,000/- to Rs.15,000/- being expenses on machinery, though the same were not supported by the vouchers a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s on 01.04.2006 was Rs.6,93,344/- During the course of survey, one note book as per Annexure D/2 was found and on pages No.19 & 20, purchases of machinery of Rs.1,85,000/- and other cash transactions for machinery purchase/other business purchases were amounting to Rs.4,26,050/-. The same were also admitted as undisclosed income. The assessee claimed during the course of assessment proceeding, the disclosure on account of expenses of Rs.4,26,050/- was made in business of incomplete books of account and ignorance of account. The balance on the opening cash was Rs.6.93 lakhs and the expenditure of Rs.4,26,050/- was made but not recorded in the regular books of account which was to be considered and recorded at the time of closing accounts. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re the CIT(A)-IV, Baroda, who has given detail finding on page nos. 2 to 9. For addition of Rs.4,26,050/- , the finding of the CIT(A) is as under:- "2.2 I have carefully considered facts of the case and appellant's submissions. The addition was made by the A.O. on the basis, of appellant's admission of unaccounted income at the time of survey. A.O. has not considered appellant's submission dated 27.3.09 on merits. On the day of survey, books of accounts for F.Y. 2006-07 were incomplete and the return of income of A.Y. 2007-08 was filed subsequently. In the audited books of accounts, payments of Rs.1,85,000/- recorded on page 19 of Annexure D-2 were duly incorporated. A.O. has not found any defect in the books of accounts. The ledger acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me of survey. On page 20 itself, "bill V.N. Enterprise" is recorded indicating that the transactions pertained to appellant's sister concern, V.N. Enterprise. During the course of assessment, appellant filed ledger A/c. of Patel Tulsibhai J, whose name is also written on top of page 20. Appellant produced books of accounts etc. of V.N. Enterprise before the A,O. to substantiate its claim regarding transactions to be pertaining to V.N. Enterprise. Appellant had thus discharged its onus in explaining the transactions as per page-20 and addition merely on the basis of statement recorded at the time of survey cannot be sustained. Addition of Rs.4,26,050/- is deleted." For addition of Rs.3,00,000/- of the CIT(A) is as under:- "3.2 I have consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure u/s 133A without any fear and force. After considering the evidence, during the course of survey, the A.O. had rightly made addition as the assessee had not adduced any evidence in support of retraction. He relied upon various cases in case of Airport Authority of India vs. Central Board of Excise and Custom (2007) 207 CTR 196 (Delhi), Ravindra D. Trivedi vs. CIT (2008) 215 CTR 313 (Raj.) & Pranav Construction Co. vs ACIT 61 TTJ Mumbai 145, in which even assessee has filed retraction affidavit after seven months of the admission as held in favour of Revenue and retraction is not valid and against the assessee. 8. Another side, the assessee filed a paper book which contains the copy of reply to the DCIT furnished on various dates and co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t dated 29.10.2007. The A.O. has not considered the affidavit in framing of the assessment. The case is audited. The assessee had claimed that some of the expenses were paid through demand draft prior to date of survey. The Books of account has not been rejected by the A.O. at the time of assessment. Whatever argument made by the ld. D.R. are in case of search u/s 132 and statement made u/s 132(4) of the IT Act on the basis of evidence found during the course of search in case of builder which is not applicable in case of the assessee. Therefore, we do not find any fault in the order of the ld. CIT(A), we confirm the same. The Revenue's appeal is dismissed on both the grounds of appeal. 10. The third ground of appeal is against the confirm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
