TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 88X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... carried forward this value of stock as reflected on 31.03.2007 at ₹ 3,72,36,668/- to 01.04.2007 to the next assessment year as opening stock, same was not disturbed and hence addition to the extent of ₹ 15,58,139/- was made in gross profit. Accordingly, addition to the extent of ₹ 15,58,139/- was rightly sustained out of addition made by Assessing Officer at ₹ 70lacs. This reasoned finding of CIT(A) needs no interference from our side. Disallwoance of renovation expenses - Held that:- Since assessee has already offered an additional amount of ₹ 63,84,565/-, which after considering the gap of ₹ 15,58,139/- on account of difference in gross profit and ₹ 409/- on account of cash was enough (Rs.48, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lief to assessee. This reasoned finding of CIT(A) needs no interference from our side Additional income of assessee - disclosure made during the course of survey - Held that:- The voluntary addition of ₹ 63lacs to the profit of ₹ 51lacs, which was made to cover the shortfall to declare income of ₹ 1.15 Crores, was more than enough to take care of disclosure of unexplained renovation expenditure. No separate addition needed to the income declared by assessee. Assessing officer failed to appreciate these facts and made addition of ₹ 11 lacs to the net profit shown. This addition of ₹ 11lacs was made to separate additions of closing stock and cash on hand. As per said sheet containing explanation for disclosure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... For The Appellant : Shri Chandra Vijay, D.R. For The Respondent : Shri Paras S. Savla, A.R. ORDER PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, J.M: This appeal has been filed by Revenue against the order of Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-33, Mumbai, dated 31.01.2011 for A.Y. 2007-08 on following grounds: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the addition of ₹ 70,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of stock difference declared during the course of survey to ₹ 15,58,139/-. 2. On the facts and circumstance of the case, the CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 11,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained expens ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... behalf of Revenue inter alia submitted that CIT(A) erred in restricting the addition of ₹ 70,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of stock difference declared during the course of survey to ₹ 15,58,139/-. Accordingly, order of CIT(A) be set aside and that of Assessing Officer be restored. On the other hand, ld. Authorized Representative supported the order of CIT(A). 3.3 After going through rival submissions and perused the material on record, we find that in absence of any specific reason for fall in gross profit specifically in view of fact that finding of survey was that stock in business of assessee was found to be understated in books. Accordingly, CIT(A) considered that gross profit should be taken at the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessing Officer stated that assessee did not show entry made on 21.02.2007 and 22.02.2007 to show the exact cash balance in hand and so made addition. During appellate proceedings, assessee filed the certified Xerox copy of cash book, which actually revealed the banking transactions for the period April 2006 to February 2007. As per that there were withdrawals from the bank on 06.01.2007 of ₹ 2 lacs and ₹ 50,000/- and the balance as on 20.02.2007 was ₹ 4,24,862/-. CIT(A) observed that assessee s books of accounts were incomplete and not written from January 2007 onwards as found by the survey team in respect of purchases and sales as well. Assessee has submitted that the survey party found cash on hand ₹ 4,25,272/-, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 70Lakhs), the disclosure of ₹ 4 lacs on account of cash need not to be made as the cash found at the time of survey was almost equal to the cash on hand as per books of account. Assessee should have made a balance disclosure of ₹ 11 lacs only on account of unexplained renovation expenditure in the return of income by adding the same to the profit of ₹ 51 lacs. However to keep the promise, assessee has shown business income of Rs. l.l5 Crores as against the real income of ₹ 62 lacs. The voluntary addition of ₹ 63lacs to the profit of ₹ 51lacs, which was made to cover the shortfall to declare income of ₹ 1.15 Crores, was more than enough to take care of disclosure of unexplained renovation ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
