TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 399
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....om Rs. 55,28,442.00 to 16,95,715.00. The relevant ground raised by Revenue is reproduced below:- "1) That on the facts and in circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) erred in reducing the Suppression of Purchase; Suppression of gross profit and Suppression of Stock calculated at Rs. 44,66,817/-; Rs. 5,67,122/- and Rs. 4,94,503/- respectively to Rs. 16,95,715/- only." 4. The facts in brief are that assessee in the present case is an individual and engaged in trading of hardware goods & cement. A survey action u/s133A was conducted at her premises on 20.01.2006. During the course of search, various documents and books of account of assessee were impounded. The Assessing Officer, in his assessment proceedings has made the following additions to the total income of assessee:- 1) Suppression for purchase Rs. 17950930 - Rs. 13484113 = Rs. 44,66,817/- 2) Suppression of GP Rs. 1128004 - Rs. 560882 = Rs. 5,67,122/- 3) Suppression of stock Rs. 1028357 - Rs. 533854 = Rs. 4,94,503 The first addition suppression of purchase was made by Assessing Officer by observing that assessee had issued cheques from its bank account for purchase of goods for an amount of Rs. 1,75,50,167/- to vari....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d closing stock as stated above. 5. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A), whereas assessee contested that all the sales and purchases were duly recorded and supported with the bills and invoices in its books of account. There was no unaccounted purchase at all. The assessee was dealing in the 'Grasim Cement' brand only and she was not selling cement of any other brand. However, assessee before Ld. CIT(A) has taken a new ground that the figure of purchases of Rs. 1,79,50,930/- taken by AO is based on all the debits from the bank statement but the fact is that all the debits entries do not represent purchase. There were debit entries of Rs. 30,82,201/- and Rs. 3,15,000/- which was utilized in giving money to Shri L.N. Bera and Shri Subhash Bera respectively. If these debit entries are excluded then there would hardly be any difference between purchase as per bank statement and books of account of assessee. Accordingly, Ld. CIT(A) has given partly relief to assessee by observing as under:- "ii. So far as debits in bank account are concerned, debits of Rs. 33,97,201/- are stated to be for money given to Shri L.N.Bera and Shri Subhash Bera the assessing officer h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rs. 45,39,436/- as mentioned in the assessment order. It may also be mentioned here that section 292C provides that any books of account or other documents are found in possession of any person in the course of survey action under section 133A, it may be presumed that such books of account and other documents belong to such person and contents of the same are true. It may also be recalled here, that the appellant had made several attempts to disown these entries, first by denying the very existence of such entries, then claiming that the corresponding purchase might have been made directly by the customers and the by suggesting that the entries might be relating to business of her husband. However, all these claims were, as discussed above, found to be incorrect. (b) The assessing officer has also mentioned that as per enquires conducted under section 133(6), as well impounded books, total purchases were amounting to Rs. 1,46,20,354/-. On the other hand, the purchases in regular books of account were of Rs. 1,34,84,113/-. Thus there were undisclosed purchases amounting to Rs. 11,36,241/- as per the impounded material. As there is no material to suggest that these also included p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....books of account of assessee. The assessment was completed not on the basis of assessee's books of account but considering all debits entries of the bank account of the assessee which has no base for making the addition of accounted purchase. Ld. AR further stated that Ld. CIT(A) is fully justified to exclude the debit entries where the transfer of money was made to Shri L.N. Bera and Shri Subhash Bera respectively for Rs. 33,97,201.00 only. 7. We have heard rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. In view of the foregoing discussions, we find that additions have been made by AO on account of suppression of purchase, closing stock and GP. The AO has worked out the suppressed purchase by treating all the debit entries from the bank as purchased after adjusting the opening and closing figures of the creditors for the year under consideration. The AO has taken the GP ratio @ 6% on the ground that the other party who is in the similar activity has declared its GP @ 6%, hence AO applied that rate. The AO has drawn the fresh trading account of the assessee after considering the unaccounted purchase, sales and applied the GP ratio @ 6% and trea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is ground of Revenue's appeal is dismissed. 8. Next issue in this appeal of Revenue is that Ld. CIT(A) has failed to consider the provision of Sec.292C of the Act. 9. At the outset, we observe that Ld. CIT(A) has passed a speaking order and after considering the submission of assessee and taking the remand report from Assessing Officer. As per Sec.292C of the Act the documents seized at the premises of assessee are presumed belonging to assessee only and assessee has to justify about those documents. In this case, we find that Ld. CIT(A) has duly considered the justification given by assessee and accordingly he passed a speaking order. Hence, we find no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A). Hence, this ground of Revenue is dismissed. 10. In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed. Coming to assessee's CO No.110/Kol/2013. 11. Assessee has raised following grounds:- "I. The Ld. CIT(A) was not justified to treat sale proceeds of cement other than Grasim(white) brand in the hands of the assessee-appellant Shyamali Bera inasmuch as dealings in cement of every other brand relate to Lakshmi Narayan Bera her husband from the same business centre; II. The presumption of acquisiti....