TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1373X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of accounts and the same were also offered to tax then in our opinion the Assessing Officer was not justified in making the addition of the same amount on the ground of retraction by the assessee. Assessing Officer has prompted to make double addition by ignoring the fact that the amounts surrendered during the course of survey have been included by the assessee in the books of accounts and financial results of the assessee which obviously amounts to double addition which is not permitted as per the provisions of the Act. In this situation, the learned CIT(A) was quite correct in deleting the impugned baseless addition and we are not able to see any valid reason to interfere with the order of the learned CIT(A) in this regard and, hence, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (i) Excess cash found Rs.39,22,821/- (ii) Unaccounted sale/receipts as per LPS-2 Rs.45,18,389/- Total - Rs.84,41,210/- However, vide its reply dated 8.1.2013, the assessee firm retracted from the surrender of unaccounted sale/receipts amounting to ₹ 45,18,389/- on the ground that after the conclusion of survey, sale bills in respect of estimated work orders found during the course of survey proceedings, were issue and accounted for in the books of accounts of the assessee firm. The Assessing Officer, on consideration of the reply of the assessee, observe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch huge excess/unaccounted cash indicates that the assessee firm is indulged in the practice of not accounting all its sales/receipts in its books of accounts. Thus, it is apparent that the assessee firm has unaccounted sales/receipts. (v) It is also seen that the assessee has not furnished the profit and loss account for the period before the date of survey and after the date of survey. Further, no reconciliation of the sale/receipts incorporating the work orders found during the course of survey proceedings was furnished. (vi) The assessee has also not furnished the hoarding-wise receipts and the period displayed thereof . On the basis of the above observation, the Assessing Officer added the amount of ₹ 45,18,389/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the claim that the receipts to the extent of ₹ 45,18,389/- were actually included in the total turnover which was offered to tax. In view of the above, the action of the ld. A.O. in making the addition on the ground of retraction by the assessee is clearly on the wrong footing and amounts to double taxation. Such action cannot be upheld. I, therefore, direct the ld. A.O. to delete the addition made. Accordingly, the ground no. 2 is allowed to the appellant. 5. Against the deletion of addition by the learned CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. We have heard arguments of both the sides and carefully perused the relevant material placed on record of the Tribunal, inter-alia, impugned assessment order and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... survey to avoid any confusion to ensure that such amounts/receipts should be included in the trading receipts of the assessee. The learned counsel for the assessee vehemtnly pointed out that these receipts have been duly considered as income of the assessee in the final books of accounts which were submitted along with the return before the Assessing Officer. The learned counsel for the assessee strenuously contended that the assessee submitted various documents in the form of ledger account, copies of sales bills and vouchers, etc. in support of the fact that the receipts to the extent of ₹ 45,18,389/- were actually included in the total turnover shown by the assessee in the trading results of the assessee which were also offered to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red to tax then in our opinion the Assessing Officer was not justified in making the addition of the same amount on the ground of retraction by the assessee. On the basis of the above noted factual matrix, we are inclined to hold that the Assessing Officer has prompted to make double addition by ignoring the fact that the amounts surrendered during the course of survey have been included by the assessee in the books of accounts and financial results of the assessee which obviously amounts to double addition which is not permitted as per the provisions of the Act. In this situation, the learned CIT(A) was quite correct in deleting the impugned baseless addition and we are not able to see any valid reason to interfere with the order of the le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
