2017 (3) TMI 985

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in ignoring the statements of Shri. Mukesh Ruparel (GM) and Shri. H.K. Popat (Accountant) recorded during the course of survey u/s 133A of the I.T. Act, 1961 ruling out stocks belonging to others, being the material statements revealing actual facts at the time of survey ? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in relying upon the statement of Shri Nainesh Nandu, Karta of HUF which was recorded almost after twelve days of the Survey u/s 133A of the I.T. Act, 1961, that the stock lying in the premises belongs to others? (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal w .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... essing Officer did not accept the explanation of the respondent assessee on both counts. Consequently, the Assessing Officer added the difference in the physical stock found and that recorded aggregating to a value of Rs. 1.02 crores. Besides, the stock was taken on the tag price less 30%. Thus, determining the respondent assessee's income at Rs. 90.95 lakhs. 5. Being aggrieved, the respondent assessee carried the issue in appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. By an order dated 31st May, 2011 the CIT(A) allowed the respondent assessee's appeal to the extent of Rs. 79.91 lakhs being the stock found on the date of the survey being in excess of that recorded in the respondent assessee's books by holding that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... was also produced, which was found acceptable by the CIT(A) to the extent it belonged to the karta of the respondent assessee HUF. Besides, the impugned order also records the fact that the stock found in excess belonging to the karta of respondent assessee in his personal capacity was factored in while determining the karta's income in his individual capacity. In the above view, the impugned order of the Tribunal upheld the findings of fact recorded by the CIT(A) in respect of the excess stock found on the date of the survey did not belong to the respondent assessee to the extent of Rs. 79.91 lakhs. 7. So far as the valuation of the inventory at less than the Tag price is concerned, the impugned order upheld the finding of the CIT(A) .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X