TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 660X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has debited unaccounted expenditure also, then, those expenditure cannot be allowed to the assessee unless it explains the source of expenditure. Once the unexplained expenditure were found to be higher than the alleged estimated gross profit, then the addition would be of the higher amount i.e. unexplained expenditure of ₹ 20,75,500/-. - Decided against revenue. - ITA No.2615/Ahd/2009, CO No.238/Ahd/2009 - - - Dated:- 29-10-2015 - SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Revenue by : Smt.Vibha Bhalla, CIT-DR For The Assessee by : Shri Sanjay Kapadia with Shri Ankur D. Shah ORDER PER BENCH: Revenue is in appeal before us against the order of the ld.CIT(A)- II, Ah ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion or business, but, merely contain planning and rough notes and jotting by the staff. It was also contended that documents were seized from the residence of the accountant, hence, they did not relate to the assessee. The documents did not disclose, specifically, whether it is sale or purchase. Thus, the emphasis of the assessee was, these are dump documents not belonging to the assessee-company, and therefore, no addition be made in the hands of the assessee. The ld.AO did not find any merit it the contentions of the assessee. He observed that perusal of various pages viz. 11, 16, 19, 21, 46 etc. indicate that the assessee has made credit sales amounting to ₹ 1,23,26,300/-. It has also incurred expenditure out of the books amountin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... total comes to ₹ 1,23,26,300/-. However, in my opinion there is no evidence that this represents outstanding dues or peak debts. Hence, it is reasonable to apply the gross profit margin of 10% on this unaccounted sales, as in the unaccounted transaction G.P. rate is higher than the accounted transactions. Therefore, the profit comes to ₹ 12,32,630/-. There is also credit balance of ₹ 20,75,500/- which can be concluded as unaccounted expenditure and the same is not allowed to as per the proviso to Section 69 of the Act. The amount of ₹ 20,75,500/- is higher than the ₹ 12,32,630/- the addition is restricted to this amount of ₹ 20,75,500/- and the balance amount of the addition is deleted. 5. With the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... han the alleged estimated gross profit, then the addition would be of the higher amount i.e. unexplained expenditure of ₹ 20,75,500/-. 6. On due consideration of finding recorded by the CIT(A) extracted supra, we are of the view that the ld.First Appellate Authority has appreciated the controversy in right perspective and no interference is called for in the findings of the CIT(A) The ground of appeal of the Revenue is rejected. 7. The ground no.2 and 3 are interconnected. In these grounds the grievances of the Revenue is that the ld.First Appellate Authority has erred in deleing the addition of ₹ 9,32,604/-. 8. Brief facts of the case are that the during the course of search surplus cash was found at CPL, Bhestan Branch a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see has explained its position about the deficit in cash. The ld.CIT(A) has appreciated the facts and circumstances in right perspective and no addition is called for. The assessee has explained its position with regard to deposit in cash. 12. In the next ground of appeal, the grievance of the Revenue is that the ld.CIT(A) has allowed the relief of ₹ 8,50,093/- ,made on account of surplus stock found during the course of survey proceedings. During the course of survey, on physical examination, stock having value of ₹ 8,89,71,479/- was found. In the books, the stock was recorded at ₹ 8,81,21,386/-. Thus, there was surplus stock. In response to the query of the AO, it was contended that a stock reconciliation statement ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l grounds of appeal, which do not call for recording of any specific finding, hence they are rejected. 14. As far as CO filed by the assessee is concerned, we are of the view that sub-section 4 of section 253 authorises the respondent to file cross-objection on receipt of notice in appeal. The CO is required to be filed within 30 days of receipt of notice and it is to be verified in the manner akin to an appeal, but, the CO is to be filed against any part of the order impugned in the appeal. In the CO filed by the assessee, he has nowhere demonstrated his grievances against any part of the order of the CIT(A), as such, the CO is not maintainable in the present form. 15. In the result, appeal of the Revenue as well as cross objection o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
