TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 222X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 5,63,608/- was purely a guess work and should be deleted. Accordingly, we direct the Ld. CIT(A) to delete the addition. Income from playing truck is business income or presumptive income U/s 44AE - Held that:- We are of the view that there is merit in the submissions of the Ld. AR for the assessee, as the propositions convassed by him are supported by the facts cited above. The Assessee keeps one truck for his business purpose and in rare cases it was rented by the assessee to outsiders. It is not the business of the assessee to keep the truck for plying. The Ld. AR argued that the truck wasgiven for hiring when it was free and the income from so hiring should be treated as business income based on materiality concept. In view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing, subsidy received and interest on FDR. The assessee filed its return of income electronically on 24.09.2010 declaring a net total income of ₹ 20,37,283/-. The Return of Income of the assessee was processed by the Department U/s 143(1) of the I.T. Act,1961 on 02/06/2011. In this case, a survey U/s 133A of the I.T. Act, 1961 was conducted on 17.03.2010 at the two Factory premises of the assessee company at Durgapur, P.O.-Bhupalpur,Dist- Uttar Dinajpur and at the office premise. During the course of survey operation u/s 133A of the I.T. Act,1961, the physical verification of stock was taken under the assistance of the assessee`s Director or his employee and the stock was valued at ₹ 99,51,645/- whereas as per stock register mai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... najpur and at the office premise. During the course of survey operation u/s 133A of the I.T. Act,1961, the physical verification of stock was taken under the assistance of the assessee`s Director or his employee and the stock was valued at ₹ 99,51,645/- whereas as per stock register maintained up to 12.03.2010, the closing stock was valued at ₹ 82,29,185/- So, there was excess stock valued at ₹ 17,22,460/-. The assessee accepted the discrepancy in stock for which a disclosure of ₹ 20,00,000/- was made by the assessee after the survey. The Ld. Assessing Officer (vide para 9.6 of his assessment order) held that the assessee at the time of recording statement on 17.03.2010 pointed out that there was stock of M/s Qual ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The assessee after three years came with an reconciliation that as per entries dated 16.03.2010, the figure was ₹ 4,60,73,602/-, so the manipulation of books can not be ruled out. (vi) Theassessee failed to explain the other points regarding production,Sale price, Consumption of power, by consuming same power production was lesser by 30.65% (vii) Shortage of closing stock by 0.5 Ton though there was no audit note on this point. So, considering all above fact it would be just and proper that the excess stock as on date 17.03.2010 was valued at ₹ 5,63,608/- as detected by the Income Tax Officials. Aggrieved from the addition of ₹ 5,63,608/- on account of unaccounted stock, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iii) has no evidentiary value and addition can not be made on the sole basis of that statement. Instruction No. 286/2/2003 (Inv) dt. 10.03.2003, issued by CBDT also says that no addition can be made merely on the basis of statement of the assessee. Considering the above instruction of CBDT, the Mumbai bench of ITAT in ADIT Vs. L.A Panday, ITA No. 4417 to 4420/M/97 dt.31.05.2004 had deleted the additionsmade merly on the basis of assessee`s statement. 4.2. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the Revenue has primarily reiterated the stand of the Assessing Officer which we have already noted in earlier paras and is not being repeated for the sake of brevity. 4.3 Having heard the rival submissions, we are of the view that there is merit in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is found that the assessee has reported an income of ₹ 59,335/- from truck plying (net after expenses). As, the assessee is also using the truck for own business, so the assessee`s actual earning from truck is not reflected in the income from truck head. Assessing Officer, accordingly has computed presumptive income of one truck @ 5000/- per Month, so the net income from truck computed at ₹ 60000/- [Rs.5000 x 12]. The assessee has claimed depreciation on said truck at ₹ 1,11,319/- the same has been disallowed by the Assessing Officer, as, the income from trucks have been computed on presumptive basis, so depreciation as claimed deemed to have been allowed and to be disallowed at the time of computation of income, ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
