TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 582X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the output is taken at ₹ 10,03,68,648, whereas if the figures shown is ₹ 10,19,71,512 were to be true, the tax payable would work out to ₹ 40,78,860. Hence, it was brought to the notice of the AO that there is an error in the VAT ledger a/c. Hence we confirm the order of the CIT (A) wherein he has held that the fact of the miss-match and the turnover in the certificate dated 23.11.2011 support the view that the figure reflected in the certificate dated 16.6.2011 is the correct figure. Further, we find that the total purchases as reflected in the VAT return and as reflected in the schedule to the P&L a/c is the same and hence we confirm the order of the CI ,T (A) and dismiss the grounds raised by the Department on this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Total(Rs.) 84,60,67,064 Sales as per trading account Sales as per VAT statement and CST statement provided by VAT (Rs.) 83,47,17,208 CST (Rs.) 1,29,63,131 Total (Rs.) 84,76,80,339 4. Assessee explained that there was an error for the month of December in the certificate dated 23.11.2011. The assessee relied on a certificate dated 16.6.2011. The turnover for December, 2008 was ₹ 10,03,68,648 whereas as per the certificate dated 23.11.2011, the turnover was S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is evidenced by the monthly return for VAT for December, 2008 as well as the certificate of the CTO, Zadcherla dated 16.06.2011. Further as pointed out by the AR, the computation of tax does not match with the turnover reflected in the certificate dated 23.11.2011. The fact that the assessee s cl;aim is in confirmity with the VAT return as well as the certificate dated 16.6.2011 and the fact of the mismatch between the turnover and the tax payable in the certificate dated 23.11.2011 lends support to the view that the figure reflected in the certificate dated 16.6.2011 is the correct figure. The addition of ₹ 16,13,275 is therefore, directed to be deleted . 7. The Revenue has filed Ground Nos. 2 3 as follows: 2. The ld CIT (A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he CIT (A) wherein he has held that the fact of the miss-match and the turnover in the certificate dated 23.11.2011 support the view that the figure reflected in the certificate dated 16.6.2011 is the correct figure. This ground of appeal is decided against the Revenue. 10. Ground Nos. 4 5 raised by the Revenue are as follows: 4. The ld CIT (A) has erred in holding that the variation in purchases is only on account of non taxable purchases being reported in the category of taxable purchases in the schedule to the P L a/c. 5. The ld CIT (A) has erred in holding that the total purchases reflected in the VAT return and as reflected in the schedule to P L a/c are one and same . 11. With regard to the addition of ₹ 97,59,69 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs.81,87,97,740 12. The AO held that the taxable raw materials (S.No.1 to 4 as per schedule above) amounted to ₹ 48,47,74,740 whereas the taxable raw materials as per the VAT return was ₹ 47,50,15,042. He brought the difference of ₹ 97,59,696 to tax as an excess claim of purchases. 13. In the course of appellate proceedings, the AR has submitted that all the purchases were supported by the requisite vouchers and evidences and the AO had also not found any evidence to the contrary. The AR also submitted that the total purchases, including both taxable and exempt purchase, as per the books tallied with the figures in the VAT returns. 14. The CIT (A) examined the facts as stated in the assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 48,47,74,738 and whereas the exempted turnover was ₹ 33,40,23,000 as against the figures shown in the table of ₹ 47,50,15,042 and ₹ 34,36,95,803. According to the AO there is a difference of ₹ 97,59,696 in the exempted raw material purchases and therefore, arrived at such an addition in the assessment order. 17. It was submitted that such an addition is not justifiable as the total purchases according the assessee and according to the AO is the same. In the circumstances, no addition should have been made by the AO. 18. The ld Counsel for the assessee further explained the difference as arrived at by the AO as follows: It can be seen at pages 3 and 4 the details of the sales tax paid on the purcha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
