9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1282X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... That the Learned CIT(Appeals) erred in law and on facts of the case in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,60,132 made by the A.O. on account of short stock found during the course of survey without examining and adjudicating upon the merits of the case. iii) Whether CIT(A) has erred in law and facts as well in not invoking the provisions of sec. 250(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 which empowers the Learned CIT(Appeals) to conduct further enquiry on the issues involved in this case. iv) (a) The order of the CIT(A) is erroneous and not tenable in law and on facts. (b) The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any/all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal. 2. Heard and considered the argu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he additions in question which has been impugned by the Revenue in the present appeal. 4. In support of the ground, the Learned Senior DR has basically placed reliance on the assessment order. She submitted that surrender was made by the assessee during the course of survey voluntarily and without appreciating this material aspect, the Learned CIT(Appeals) has deleted the additions. 5. The Learned AR on the other hand placed reliance on the First Appellate Order. He reiterated his submissions made before the authorities below. He also referred the decision relied upon by the assessee before the Learned CIT(Appeals). 6. Having gone through the orders of the authorities below, I find that after making surrender of Rs. 13,76,676 in his stat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stated amount. Regarding the verification of stock, assessee submitted that the stock noted by the officer was incorrect and quantities were inflated/deflated of the certain items. The Learned CIT(Appeals) called for the remand report from the Assessing Officer on the submissions and details of stock filed by the assessee before him. He also asked the Assessing Officer for his examination and comments on the submission filed by the assessee along with the paper book. The Assessing Officer submitted his remand report thereafter the assessee was asked to furnish rejoinder thereto, which was complied with. Discussing all these aspects in details, the Learned CIT(Appeals) has come to the following finding: "9.8. Even on merit the addition is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in ACIT vs. Smt. Usha Rani Talla (2010) 6 ITR (Trib.) 37 (Delhi) has also held that if statement is recorded in survey is retracted on the ground that such statement was made under coercion and there is no material evidence to sustain the addition then addition made was not justified. In the present case once material collected during survey is not confronted to the assessee, it can be deemed as not existing and therefore, no addition can be made on the basis of statement alone which is retracted. Thirdly, the Assessing Officer has not pointed out either in the assessment order or in the remand report what was the procedure adopted for physical verifying the stock. In view of this no addition so made by the Assessing Officer can be sustain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d.
The ground Nos. 1 to 3 are thus rejected.
8. In result, the appeal is dismissed.
9. C.O. No. 224/Del/2015: During the course of hearing, the assessee who has preferred this cross objection on the issue that Learned CIT(Appeals) should have annulled the assessment order because the procedure laid down under sec. 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 relating to the recording of the satisfaction in the case of searched assessee as well as in the case of present assessee was not followed by the Assessing Officer, has not been pressed. The cross objection is accordingly rejected as not pressed.
10. In summary, both the appeal and cross objection are dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 02.11.2015 X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
