9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 696X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by you. 2. During the course of survey, it was claimed that as per books of accounts the closing stock as on 15-02-2007 was under: (i) Raw Material Rs. 1,02,80,915/- (ii) Semi finished goods Rs. 97,757/- (iii) Finished goods Rs. 23,26,099/- Rs. 1,27,02,099/- 3. Whereas the stock physically found was as under :- (i) Finished goods Rs. 1,94,29,307/-. 4. Accordingly the difference in stock at Rs. 67,26,537/- was admitted and during the course of statement recorded in 133A not invest on 15.02.2007 was admitted at Rs. 59,97,884/- and therefore on such undisclosed income advance tax payment of Rs. 15,00,000/- was agreed to be paid. 5. During the course of submission on 18.12.2009, it was explained that out of total undisclosed income at Rs.55 lakhs, an amount of Rs. 40,00,000/- is shown under the head Reserve and Surplus and further amount of Rs.15,00,000/- was shown in goods in process. However, on going through the balance sheet, the amount shown in Reserve and Surplus is only Rs. 25,00,00/- is shown and therefore it is not known where the difference amount of Rs. 1500000/- is shown. The w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... explained, the transactions cannot he treated as genuine. Besides above, in the aforesaid bank account, there are deposits of money by way of drafts of Rs. 250000/- on 22/5/2006 and Rs. 300000/- on 21/5/2006. The source of deposits of Rs.550000/- are not known. Unless all these transactions are explained the cash credits cannot be treated as genuine. Moreover, there are credits from SB Account No. 141, CA 1345 and CA 1241, unless copies of all these bank accounts are produced for verification the same cannot be treated as explained particularly in absence of any copy of balance sheet as on 31-03-2006 & 31-03-2007. 10. In respect of credit of Rs. 642780/- in the name of Patel Purviben Dahyabhai, it has been claimed that on received of Rs. 642780/- from M/S. Aone Coated Abrasive the said amount is advanced to the assessee but on going through the copy of Bank account No. 9190, there are following credits and debits. (i) 18,4.2006 Rs. 250000/- (ii) 19.4.2006 Rs. 250000/- (iii) 24.4.2006 Rs. 49826/- (iv) 26.2.2007 Rs. 131269/- (v) 26.2.2007 Rs.369000/- (vi) 16.3.2007 Rs.642780/- (vii) 29.3.2007 Rs. 484000/- (viii) 19.3.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2006. (ii) Rs. 30864.44 on 3.8.2006 (iii) Rs. 259324 on 19.3.2007 transferred to A/c. No. CA 1536. In absence of copies of Balance sheet as on 31-03-2006 & 31-03-2007, the same cannot be treated as explained. 13. In respect of Patel Manjulaben Mahendrakumar, an amount of Rs. 271223 was sent to A/c. No. CA 1536 on 19-3-2007, the said transactions may be explained by furnishing copy of said bank account. 14. In respect if creditor Smt. Maniben Ambalal Patel there is deposit of Rs. 331500/- on 29-04-2006, and Rs. 175119/- on 29-07-2006 from A/c. No.CA 1349. From the said account a sum or Rs. 331500/- was sent to Multi Poly Ltd. On 29-04-2006. Rs. 175719/- was transferred on 29-07-2006 and Rs. 485288/- on 19-03-2007. In absence of copy of balance sheet as on 31-03-2006 & 31-03-2007, the same cannot be treated as explained. 15. In respect of credit of Rs. 40100/-in the name of Shri Maganbhai N. Patel, HUF, the bank account No. 9231 of Dena Bank reveal that there is deposits of draft of Rs. 90000/- on 19-05-2006 and Rs.90000/- on 10-05-2007 which were transferred to A/c. CA 1241. As the source of deposit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : (i) 18-5-2006 Drafts Rs. 90,000/- (ii) 18-5-2006 TRF, CXA No.1345 Rs. 595000/- (iii) 22-8-2006 -do- Rs. 115200/- (iv) 6-12-2006 TRF Rs. 90000/- 23. In respect of account of Dahyabhai Jethabhai Patel,HUF the money of Rs. 40000/- was credited after receipt Rs. 45000/- by draft on 17-5-2006 from Smt. Shuahilben Kacharalal Patel. As there is no balance sheet as on 31-3-2006 & 31-3-2007 of the creditor and in absence of copy of the bank account of Smt, Shushilaben the transactions cannot be treated as genuine. 24. In the copy of Bank account No. 11888 of Bhavinkumar K. Patel, an amount of Rs. 195710 was sent to the bank account CA 1536. In absence of the copy of said bank account, the credits cannot be treated as genuine. 25. In the copy of account No. 12353 of Shri Bhavinkumar Kantilal Patel, HUF, an amount of Rs. 531794/- was transferred to A/c. No. CA 1536. In absence of copy of Bank A/c. No. 1536, the credits cannot be treated as explained and genuine. 26. In the account of Shri Patel Amratlal Bhikhabhai the said party has allowed Rs.300000/- on 11.7.2006 and Rs. 340000/- on 6-3-2007. Interest credited is only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee had submitted various details vide letter dated 02.09.2009 before the ld. A.O. which include the copy of trading account, p&l account, balance sheet on the date of survey & upto 31.03.2007 and disclosure made u/s. 133A of Rs.40,00,000/- had been shown by the assessee. The appellant before CIT also stated the reasons for fall of GP and submitted the revised working of net profit which was minus at Rs.6,41,930/- as on the date of survey i.e. 15.02.2007. The assessee had made another submission on 24.01.2011 before the CIT and had furnished another revised working of net profit of Rs.38,38/- as on the date of survey. The contention of the appellant that all the particulars, items relating to manufacturing and trading account had been submitted before the A.O. up to the date of survey and as on 31.03.2007 on 02.09.2009 but which were not found correct to the CIT(A). On verification of D-1 to 8 & 23 of letter dated 02.09.2009 were pertained to whole year not as on date of survey. The ld. A.O. did not make any inquiry for fall in GP. Therefore, it is observed by the CIT(A) that here that no books of account had been properly examined by the A.O. The book results were prima facie acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i) Ram Pyari Devi Saraogi v CIT (1968) 67 ITR, 84 (SC) (ii) Tara Devi Aggarval v CIT (1973) 88 ITR, 323 (SC) (iii) Gee Vee Enterprises v Addl. CIT (1975) 99 ITR, 375 (Del.) (iv) CIT v Pushpa Devi (1988) 173 ITR, 445 (Pat.) (v) K.A. Ramaswamy Chettair v. CIT (1996) 220 ITR, 657 (Mad.) (vi) CIT v Shree Manjumathesware Packing Products and Comphor Works (1998) 231 ITR, 53 (SC) He further relied upon the case of Venkatakrishna Rice Co. v CIT (1987) 163 ITR, 129 (mad.), Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v CIT (2000) 243 ITR, 83(SC). The ld. CIT held that the order dated 24.12.2009 of the A.O. is erroneous and prejudice to the interest of the Revenue and accordingly he set aside to make a de novo assessment after detailed and proper verification of the facts of the case with reference to issues mentioned in the order u/s.263 after giving opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 3. The assessee carried the matter before us. Ld. Counsel for the appellant filed three paper books in this case which includes the copy of computation of income, copy of Audit Report, A.O's. query letter dated 12.08.2009, reply of the assessee dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
