TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 408X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ey, assessee failed to submit the stock reconciliation. He had in fact conveyed that no stock was maintained. The assessee had failed to provide stock register despite several opportunities. Inter alia on such grounds, the CIT (A) had confirmed the addition. It is true that the Tribunal has discussed the issue somewhat briefly. Nevertheless, the Tribunal has observed that the information given by Mahesh Biyani cannot be brushed aside nor has the assessee brought on record any material to show that the same was incorrect or unreasonable. More importantly, the Tribunal noted that the material found during the survey proceedings showed that the books of accounts were not correctly maintained and that therefore, there was no error in rejection ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Biyani was sitting at the shop. His detailed statement was recoded by the Revenue Authorities in which, he made certain disclosures and admissions. In the statement he described himself as an employee of the assessee receiving monthly salary of ₹ 10,600/-. In such statement, he had admitted that there was unaccounted receipt of ₹ 18,000/- per day from such business. The declarant, however, later on retracted his statement by an affidavit dated 05.03.2009. 3. The Assessing Officer passed the order of assessment on 30.12.2011 for the assessment year 2009-2010, in which, he made addition of ₹ 59.40 lacs as unaccounted income. The assessee filed appeal before the CIT (Appeals) and disputed such addition. CIT (A) disposed o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the first question. Learned counsel Mr. J.P.Shah for the appellant submitted that the first order of the CIT(A) dated 25.02.2014 reduced the addition from ₹ 59.40 lacs made by the Assessing Officer to ₹ 56 lacs by the Commissioner. In the process, the Commissioner entirely shifted the basis from unaccounted sale to gross profit rate and higher turnovers. This order was not challenged by the Revenue and therefore, in the fresh round of litigation CIT (A) could not have restored the original addition of ₹ 59.40 lacs made by the Assessing Officer. 7. We may, however, recall that when the CIT (A) reduced the addition to ₹ 56 lacs from ₹ 59.40 lacs made by the Assessing Officer, in an appeal filed by the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, assessee failed to submit the stock reconciliation. He had in fact conveyed that no stock was maintained. The assessee had failed to provide stock register despite several opportunities. Inter alia on such grounds, the CIT (A) had confirmed the addition. It is true that the Tribunal has discussed the issue somewhat briefly. Nevertheless, the Tribunal has observed that the information given by Mahesh Biyani cannot be brushed aside nor has the assessee brought on record any material to show that the same was incorrect or unreasonable. More importantly, the Tribunal noted that the material found during the survey proceedings showed that the books of accounts were not correctly maintained and that therefore, there was no error in rejection ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
