TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 289X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce between the unaccounted sales and purchases - CIT (Appeals) had taken the profit element on the unaccounted sales at ₹ 1,69,281 (i.e. at 1% of unaccounted sales of ₹ 1,69,28,140) and considered the balance amount of the difference as unexplained investment and adjusted the same in the closing stock - Held that:- In our view, this approach of the learned CIT (Appeals) cannot be faulted as the assessee itself has adjusted the closing stock in the re-cast accounts. In this view of the matter, we concur with the findings of the learned CIT (Appeals) that the difference between the unaccounted sales and purchases would include an amount of ₹ 1,69,289 towards suppressed profits from the unaccounted transactions and the balance amount represents the undisclosed investment in unaccounted purchases.- Decided against assessee. - I.T.A. No.338/Bang/2014 - - - Dated:- 29-6-2015 - Shri N.V. Vasudevan and Shri Jason P. Boaz, JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri K.Y. Ningoji Rao, C.A. For the Respondent : Dr.P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT (D.R.) ORDER Per Shri Jason P. Boaz, A.M. : This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oduced before him by the assessee did not show any commission received from the buyers and the claim of mixing up of entries by the employees of the assessee cannot be accepted for the reason that the persons who have written the books of accounts for the two concerns are different. After rejecting the assessee's contentions, the Assessing Officer made an addition of the difference between the unaccounted sales and unaccounted purchases amounting to ₹ 25,64,032 as the suppressed profit of the assessee and computed the total income of the assessee accordingly. 3. Aggrieved by the order of assessment for Assessment Year 2007-08 dt.31.12.2009, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (Appeals), Mysore reiterating the submissions put forth before the Assessing Officer. The assessee also filed a re-cast statement of accounts wherein the profit was worked out at ₹ 11,01,256 as against income of ₹ 1,31,940 as per the audited accounts of the assessee which was declared in the return of income filed for Assessment Year 2007-08. The learned CIT (Appeals) forwarded the said re-cast accounts, furnished by the assessee, to the Assessing Officer for his report the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tition for condonation of delay in filing of this appeal. 7. Order on petition for condonation of delay in filing this appeal for Assessment Year 2007-08. 7.1 In the case on hand, the assessee filed this appeal against the order of the CIT (Appeals), Mysore dt.27.6.2013 before the Tribunal for Assessment Year 2007-08 on 11.3.2014. Along with the appeal the assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay in filing this appeal. The fact situation narrated by the petitioner in its petition for condonation of delay is extracted hereunder :- 4. As per the information given by the Assessing Officer and the Tax Recovery Officer some time during the end of Jan., 2014, the appellant came to know that the CIT (Appeals), Mysore had already disposed of the appeal so restored, by his order dt.27.6.2013 in ITA No.80/CIT(A)/Mys/12-13. 5. However the aforesaid appellate order dt.27.6.2013 was not received by the appellant and as such the appellant by his application dt.3.2.2014 requested the CIT (Appeals), Mysore to furnish him a copy of his said appellate order dt.27.6.2013. 6. The CIT (Appeals), Mysore by his letter dt.3.3.2014 has furnished the copies of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equity, are of the view that this is a fit case for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal and do so. The appeal is accordingly admitted for adjudication. 8. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds :- 1. The impugned order of assessment is liable to set aside in so far as it is incorrect, improper, irregular, opposed to facts and circumstances of the case and opposed to the law. 2. That the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in upholding the addition of ₹ 25,64,032 made by the Assessing Officer, even though the increase in the gross profit worked out by him in his impugned order is only ₹ 1,69,298 and as such the impugned addition is liable to set aside. 3. That the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in upholding the addition of ₹ 25,64,032 made by the Assessing Officer, on the ground that the net effect of the revised accounts filed by the appellant is the same as the gross profit goes in to sales and as such the impugned addition is liable to set aside. 4. That the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in upholding the impugned addition of ₹ 25,64,032 with complete disregard to the facts of the case and the well founded and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TA No.230/Bang/2012 dt.26.12.2012 (supra), the learned CIT (Appeals) after considering the rival submissions made in respect of the re-cast accounts, dismissed the assessee's claim by holding as under at paras 3.1 and 3.2 of the impugned order. 3.1 Accordingly the case has been heard. The appellant has furnished the trading account highlighting the effect of the omissions which is as follows : Original Final Original Final Opening stock Nil. Nil. Sales 20,98,09,444 20,98,09,444 Purchases 21,51,63,466 21,51,63,466 Omitted Sales Nil. 1,69,28,140 Omitted Purchases Nil. Closing Stock 74,52,100 50,57,363 Gross Profit 20,98,078 Total 21,72,61,5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmissions made before the Assessing Officer vide letter dt.30.12.2009, the assessee contended that the differences in purchases and sales were due to wrong entries made by its employees who had interchanged the entries between the assessee HUF and the individual business of the Karta and that bills are raised for purchases made directly by the buyers. Subsequently, the assessee endeavoured to re-cast the books of account incorporating all the purchases and sales as per the registers/documents impounded in the course of survey action on 9.3.2007. It was contended that there were omissions to account for certain purchases and sales, which caused the discrepancies. It was then contended that the audited books of accounts should be disregarded and the results as per the re-cast books of account have to be accepted. 11.5.3 The Assessing Officer did not agree with the contentions of the assessee. He considered the unaccounted purchases and sales as transactions outside the books of account and considered the differences between the two as suppressed profits. The learned CIT (Appeals) in the impugned order dt.27.4.2013, passed pursuant to the remand by the Tribunal, has considered 1% o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
