9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (12) TMI 677X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made on decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Bajrang Textiles 205 CTR 287 (Raj.)." 2. That under the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) further erred in not annulling order of the learned AO which was framed by him beyond time provided in section 153(2) of the IT Act 1961 which was extended by learned AO by appointing Special Auditors u/s 142(2A) and extending their time again and again thus taking benefit of proviso to sec.153(4)." 2.2 A survey u 133A of the Act was carried out on 01-10-2008 at the business premises of the assessee. On the basis of the loose papers and incriminating documents found during the course of survey, a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 2nd March, 2009 with prior approval of the Addl. CIT, range 2, Kota. The notice was duly served on the assessee on 4-3-2009. In response to this notice, the assessee vide letter dated 8th April, 2009 submitted that original return which was filed on 3rd Dec. 2003 may be treated as return in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. The AO in his assessment order has observed that the assessee was totally non-cooperative not only during the course of survey but also during the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tten submissions are available at para 4.2 of ld. CIT(A)'s order which are reproduced as under:- ''4.2 Appellant in his written submissions argued that copies of impounded documents were not given to him before filing of return. It was also argued that copies of impounded documents were not given even before referring the case for special audit u/s 142(2A). It was further argued that there was no complexity in the accounts, which required special audit. In support of his argument, appellant relied on following judicial decisions: (a) Peerless General Finance & Investment Co.Ltd.& ANR vs. Dy.CIT & ORS - (1991) 156 CTR (Cal) 512. (b) Muthoottu Mini Juries vs. Dy.CIT & ANR (2001) 166 CTR (Ker) 180. (c) State Forest Corporation vs. Joint CIT (2001) 170 CTR (HP) 133. (d) Allidhara Texpro Engineering (P) Ltd. vs. Dy.CIT (2009) 223 CTR (Guj) 481. (e) West Bengal State Co-operative Bank Ltd.vs. Jt. CIT & ORS (2004) 190 CTR (Cal) 245. (f) Rajesh Kumar & ORS vs. Dy.CIT & ORS (2006) 206 CTR (SC) 175. (g) Hind Samachar Ltd. vs. CIT & ANR (2008) 216 CTR (SC) 303. (h) Sahara India (Firm) vs. CIT & ANR (2008) 216 CTR (SC) 303. (i) CIT vs. Bajrang Textiles 205 CTR (Raj) 287.'' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in compliance to notice u/s 148 and to verify if there are complexities in accounts which justifies appointment of Special Auditors in consonance to provisions of Sec.142(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 etc.etc. (iv) During 01.10.2008 to 07.09.2009 the learned AO did not called me for any explanation on impounded papers. (v) Vide his letter no.2236 dated 07.09.2009 the learned AO asked me to explain on or before 17.09.2009 why considering nature and complexity of the accounts seen in my impounded records and in the interest of revenue my accounts/ impounded records for Ass.Year 2003-04 to 2007-08 be not got audited u/s 142(2A) of the IT Act, 1961. It was also mentioned in the last para of this letter that this is last opportunity to me and that if I did not complied this letter there shall be no option but to assume by him that I do not have any objection (PB 21). I may add here before this letter I never received any communication from learned AO or any other authorities either in relation to impounded papers or on my return of income filed. On 17.09.2009 I went to office of the learned AO to explain him that there was no complexity in my accounts which may suggest for appoin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee for any good and sufficient reasons. (ix) In this regard I reproduce sec.142(2C) which reads:- "(2C) Every report under sub-section (2A) shall be furnished by the assesse to the [Assessing] Officer within such period as may be specified by the [Assessing] Officer: Provided that the [Assessing] Officer may, [suo motu, or] on an application made in this behalf by the assessee and for any good and sufficient reason, extend the said period by such further period or periods as he thinks fit; so, however, that the aggregate of the period originally fixed and the period or periods so extended shall not, in any case, exceed one hundred and eighty days from the date on which the direction under sub-section (2A) is received by the assessee." In this case time was extended by the learned ITO from 31.12.2009 to 28.02.2010, from 28.02.2010 to 28.03.2010 and from 28.03.2010 to 30.04.2010 (PB 31, 33 & 35) on request of Special Auditors which is beyond provisions of section 142(2C). From these request letters of Special Auditor no where it transpires that extension was sought by them for good and sufficient reasons (PB 30, 32 & 34). Besides request by Special Auditors for extension of ti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, loose papers, documents, bank statements etc. and to prepare cash inflow/ outflow statements, cash book, ledger, trial balance, final accounts i.e. trading and profit and loss account, balance sheet etc. for different years as mentioned above with the aim to enable the department to arrive at the true state of financial affairs of the various concerns in which the assesses is associated either as a proprietor or partner (both in individual or HUF capacity) or a Director of Company. (b) To list all the transactions of loans / deposits taken /accepted by the assessee during the aforesaid assessment year above ₹ 20000/- each otherwise than through account payee cheque, giving such particulars as name and address of the borrower, date of loan, period of loan,, interest rate, amount of interest, details and security, amount received back, mode of repayment etc. (c) To list all the transactions of loans given by the assessee during the aforesaid assessment year above ₹ 20000/- each other wise than through account payees cheque, giving such particulars as name and address of the borrower, date of loan, period of loan, interest rate, amount of interest, details and secur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ditions precedent - Assessee-co operative banks accounts already audited not only under s.44AB but also by the Directorate of Cooperative Audit appointed by the State Government - Neither books of assessee examined by AO so as to form an opinion as regards complexity of accounts nor opportunity of hearing given which was necessary in view of civil consequences of order under s.142(2A) - CIT granting approval in a mechanical way - Order of AO under s. 142(2A) and approval of CIT invalid, hence quashed. Before he comes to the conclusion, as to the nature and complexity of the accounts, he shall make a genuine and honest attempt to understand the accounts of the assessee and appreciate the entries therein and in case of doubt, he should seek explanation from the assessee or his representative. A cursory look at the books of account is not sufficient for formation of opinion by the AO for exercise of power under s. 142(2A) of the said Act. His opinion must be based upon objective considerations and not on the basis of subjective satisfaction. Naturally the AO must have occasion and opportunity to examine the accounts of the assessee to form his opinion. Therefore, I conclude that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the learned AO, period for submission of report by auditors shall be extended again and again and that after completion of audit only for eyewash copies of impounded records shall be given to me. It appears it was collusion wherein unfortunately Auditors also supported Deptt. Supported because Hon'ble Special Auditors were well aware of audit ethic and when it was not possible for him to conduct audit in presence of auditee, he could have refused for the same. Normally after verification of papers/ documents Auditors place their identification mark thereon togetherwith their seal to enable him to justify that who had verified a particular paper, however from the zerox copies of the impounded papers it appears that he has not done so in this case which supports that no verification of records and even important papers was made by him. Simply some papers appears to be shown to auditors by learned AO or it may be that Special Auditors might be briefed by learned AO as to some important papers. 2.7 I submit as per terms and reference assigned job of Auditors narrated in para 2.2(a) above includes preparation of cash inflow/ outflow statements, cash book, ledger, trial balance, final ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ings given by the Tribunal are findings of fact based upon the relevant material." 2.10 Report of Special Auditors for Ass.Year 2003-04 to 2008-09 is at PB 37 to 56 of which reports for Ass.Year 2003-04 to 2005-06 are reproduced below:- COMMENTS & OBSERVATIONS OF THE AUDITORS APPOINTED U/S 142(2A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 & 2004-05 We have been appointed auditors u/s 142(2A) by the worthy CIT, Kota vide his office letter no. CIT/KOTA/ITO(T)/2009-10/2540 dated 13.11.2009. After examining the impounded books and documents lying with the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kota our comments and observation are as follows:- 1. Letters of requirement of documents, information and explanation were sent on 13.01.2010, 16.03.2010, 08.04.2010 &12.04.2010. The assessee replied vide his letter dated 21.01.2010, 25.01.2010, 22.03.2010, 10.04.2010 & 16.04.2010 submitted that regular books of accounts for the period have been impounded during the survey and lying in the Income Tax Department. Regular books of account are not available for audit. Under such circumstances, we are unable to prepare and submit Special Audit Report for the given period but comments and observations have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. 23 of impounded books, which is of ₹ 244200/- in Balance Sheet. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, Sd/- (P.Khandelwal) CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT From these reports you will please find that auditors have gathered informations for learned AO to enable him to take decision on those informations. We with respect submit it neither reflects any complexity in accounts nor it justifies role of the Special Auditors in terms of provisions of sec.142(2A). 2.11 As mentioned in the learned AO's appointment letter dated 19.11.2009 the auditors were to give their report by 31.12.2009. U/s 142(2C) such period can be extended by the AO either suo moto or on request of the assessee for any good and sufficient reasons. However, it can not be extended on request of Auditors. But in this case period was extended from 31.12.2009 to 28.02.2010, from 28.02.2010 to 28.03.2010 and from 28.03.2010 to 30.04.2010 on request of auditors which is witnessth from letters dated 21.12.2009 & 04.03.2010 of the learned AO (PB 30 & 32). I may further mention second extension is requested by auditors after lapse of time available to him. 2.12 From my aforesaid submissions it is evident that:- (i) During su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o decision of Hon'ble Apex Court Sahara India (supra) I request orders from Ass.Year 2003-04 to 2008-09 deserves annulment and therefore I pray for the same." 2.8 On the other hand, the ld. DR submitted that the AO gave the opportunity to the assessee before referring the matter of special audit to the ld. CIT, Kota. The assessee has not availed the opportunity. The assessee was not at all cooperative during the course of survey or assessment proceedings. It was further submitted that proviso to Section 142(2A) is clarificatory and therefore, the AO was having jurisdiction to extend the date of filing of Audit Report on the basis of the sufficient reasons. 2.9 We have heard both the parties. The AO in his assessment order has mentioned that the assessee was neither cooperative during the course of survey nor during the course of assessment proceedings. The AO has referred to the statement recorded at the time of survey. As per assessment order, the date of statement is 14th Oct. 2008 while survey was carried out on 01-10-2008. Thus the assessee was not able to explain the details contained in the books of accounts. The ld. AR has not filed the copy of the statement. We have gone ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... letter dated 17-09-2009 of the assessee in which the assessee submitted that Photostat copies of the documents be given and thereafter some time should be provided so as to enable the assessee to explain as to whether the special audit is needed or not. Page 23 of the paper book contains the letter dated 17-09-2009 issued by the AO. In this letter, the AO has mentioned that none has attended the proceedings in response to letter dated 7th Sept. 2009. The AO also informed the assessee that the impounded documents were shown to the assessee as and when the assessee attended the proceedings in response to the summon issued u/s 131 of the Act. The assessee was asked to inspect the documents and such request of the AO was not availed of by the assessee. It is interesting to note that AO issued notice u/s 148 of the Act and the in response to that notice the assessee stated that original return should be treated as a return filed in respect of notice u/s 148 of the Act. When the notice u/s 148 of the Act is issued after recording the reasons and that too only on the basis of the documents found during the course of survey, it was the duty of the assessee to disclose the correct return in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant case the AO asked the special auditor to do the special audit in view of the provisions of Rule 14A. Rule 14A says that report of the audit is to be given in the form no. 6B. Form No. 6 B mentions about various items on which the special auditor has to give his report. Such items contained in form no. 6B was also intimated to the special auditor. It is true that the AO required the auditor to examine all the account books, bills, vouchers, loose papers, documents bank statement etc. and to prepare the cash inflow/ outflow statements , cash book, ledger, trial balance, final accounts, trading and profit and loss account , balance sheet etc. for different assessment years as mentioned above with the aim to enable the Department to arrive at the true state of affairs of various concerns in which the assessee is associated either as a proprietor or partner. The basic purpose was for examination of the books of accounts and to give the comments on different issues including the violation of provisions of Section 269SS, 269T and Section 40A(3 of the Act. The AO has mentioned in the letter that audit is to be carried out in view of the provisions of Rule 14A. One has to read entire le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... play in action. The aim of rules of natural justice is to secure justice or to put it negatively, to prevent miscarriage of justice. These rules can operate only in areas not covered by any law validly made they do not supplant the law but supplement it.'' 2.11 The proviso to Section 142(2A) was inserted by the Finance Act 2007 w.e.f. 01- 06-2007 vide which it was provided that the AO will not direct the assessee to get the accounts audited unless the assessee has been given reasonable opportunity of being heard. In the instant case, the AO has given adequate opportunity. The AO has mentioned that the assessee was asked to inspect the documents. The AO has referred to the statement recorded after the survey. The assessee nowhere stated that all the documents can be explained by him. Subsequently, the assessee himself has surrendered income . One has to consider all the facts then it cannot be said that the order of the AO in directing the case for special audit is invalid. There is sufficient material to suggest that the AO has examined the impounded documents and formed his opinion about the complexities of the accounts. In the absence of non-cooperation from the assessee, the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom FFPL or GTPL. Hence, in respect of these two companies, the Hon'ble High Court cancelled the orders of the AO for referring the matter for special audit. However, in respect of other two companies it was noticed that the auditors submitted their report and the assessments have been made on 31-03-2008 while these two companies have filed the petition only 12-05-2008. After passing of the assessment order, no steps were taken when the order u/s 142(2A) dated 31-12-2007 was passed. Hence order for special audit was not canceled. In the instant case, the assessee has not challenged the special audit before the Hon'ble High Court in. Therefore, this decision is impliedly in favour of the revenue. 4. West Bengal State Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. JCIT, 190 CTR 245 In this case, the plea was taken that the ld. CIT(A) has not examined the books of accounts and have not relied upon the records namely assessment order , profit and loss account and balance sheet. This contention stands accepted by the revenue as per facts available in the decision. Hence, on these grounds, the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court cancelled the order u/s 142(2A) of the Act. In the instant case the AO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed vide letter dated 17th Sept 2009 and at that relevant time, the AO as per provision to Section 142(2 C)) was having the power to extend the period for submitting the report by the special auditor, even otherwise, the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. CIT , 244 CTR 397 held that amendment in proviso is clarificatory. Even before amendment, the AO was having the powers to extend the date in case there are good and sufficient reasons. It is not the case of the assessee that the AO has extended the period at the request of the auditor and such period exceeds 180 days. If the period extended is not beyond the period of 180 then the power exercised by the AO is within the provisions of law and order cannot be held as invalid on this point. The AO in his order has mentioned that the assessee has not been cooperative during the assessment proceedings as well as during survey proceedings. In the statements of facts before the ld. CIT(A), no averment has been made against such findings of the AO. The AO has also mentioned that he requested the assessee to inspect the documents and was willing to provide copies of the documents in case the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gin. The assessee however admitted that he did not have books of accounts for this business and therefore offered 5% NP thereon which is at par to sec.44AF. The ld CIT(A) however sustained income from this business at ₹ 2,78,381/- against ₹ 36,94,608/- determined by the AO. Besides, the AO also made addition of ₹ 129134/- on account of undisclosed investment. 4.3 Before us, the ld. AR has filed the following submissions. ''3.04 Whereas Deptt. is in appeal on relief of ₹ 3287093/- (3694608-407515(278381 +129134)) while the assessee is in appeal for addition of ₹ 129134/-. 3.05 There is no denial to this fact that during Survey page 48 of Annexure 23 was found wherein Trading A/c with sales of ₹ 3694608/- and GP of ₹ 278381/- are appearing. It is also fact that in order to arrive real income from GP different expenses of the administrative/ financial nature are deductible, however, as I was not having any evidence for the same I did not dispute to income of ₹ 278381/-. Appeal of the deptt.on this issue is not maintainable because deptt has to accept the impounded papers /document in toto. In the Trading A/c sales of ₹ 3694608 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpany in the financial year 2001-02 to 2003-04. The profit earned in the immediately preceding year from M/s. Deepak Stone Co. was sufficient for the capital required for conducting the business of M/s. Deepak Stone Co. Thus the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of ₹ 1,29,132/-. Hence, the ground of appeal no. 3(i) of the assessee is allowed while ground of appeal no. 1 of the revenue is dismissed. 5.1 The Ground No. 3(ii) of the assessee and the Ground No. 3 of the Department mentioned below relate to the same issue and therefore, these are disposed off together GOA no.3(ii) of assessee - "That under the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) erred in estimating profit rate of 35% on undisclosed sales of ₹ 1102817/- as against disclosed NP rate of 6.31% as per Trading A/c attached with ROI" GOA no.3 of Deptt.- "The learned CIT(A) erred in restricting addition on account of unrecorded grit sales from ₹ 1102817/- to ₹ 385986/-." 5.2 The AO on perusal of Annexure NO. 43 of the impugned material noticed that the assessee has made grit sales aggregating to ₹ 11,02,817/-. The assessee was asked to explain such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resaid submission is not accepted and undisclosed sales as worked out by learned AO is retained NP rate of 5% which is at par to sec.44AF or NP rate as per our books 6.31% (PB 58) (Reliance is made on CIT Vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar 186 CTR (MP) 419; Manmohan Sadani Vs.CIT 304 ITR 52 (MP) & CIT Vs. President Industries 158 CTR 372)(Guj)) or NP rate of 7.45% as determined in comparable case of M/s Maheshwari Crushers, Kota - Ass.Year 2007-08 (PB 225-226) be applied.'' 5.6 On the other hand, the ld. DR stated that entire sales should be added as income. 5.7 We have heard both the parties. The special auditor in his report has submitted that grit sales aggregating to ₹ 1,02,817/- are to be subjected for verification by the AO. It means that such sales were not verifiable from the regular books of account. The onus was on the assessee to have established that such sales are part of the sales included in the regular books of account. In respect of unrecorded sales, one has to apply the profit for estimating the income from such sales. The ld. CIT(A) has directed to estimate the profit @ 35% on recorded sales. The profit so estimated is excessive as per profit disclosed on the record ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ''8.3 From the perusal of assessment records it is found that during the course of survey loose paper was found, in which Trading & Profit & Loss Account for the period 01.01.2007 to 30.11.2007 is drawn. As per this account GP of ₹ 5927309/- is declared on total sale of ₹ 94,87,962/-, which is 62.47% and NP of ₹ 30,48,097/- which is approximately 32.12%. It was argued by the appellant that this account was prepared for obtaining bank finance, but as pointed out by AO no finance has been taken by appellant from any institution. Therefore this argument is not acceptable. It was further argued that a suitable rate may be applied on the basis of rates declared by other traders in similar line of business. This argument of appellant is also not acceptable. This is a specific document found during the course of survey from the premises of appellant himself and therefore the same represents true state of his affairs. AO is justified in estimating profit @ 35% on total sales in view of this loose paper. Addition of ₹ 5,48,805/- is in order and the same is confirmed. Ground No. 4(iv) is thus dismissed'' 6.5 Before us, the ld. AR submitted that following submissions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tor then total weight would be 10255 X 5 = 51275 tons and average yield of grit is 65 % which includes sand and smaller sizes as well as such the production of final material would be 65% of 51275 tons = 33329 tons and average area covered by a ton is 35 eft. On the basis of above formula the sales of grit in the loose paper will be 9487962 / ₹ 8.2 = 1157069 eft and if 35 eft be the per ton production then the conversion into tons will be 11 57069 / 35 = 33059 that means the same will almost tally with the figures as mentioned above. The normal selling price is Rs. l4/- for the grit of 40 mm size and 20 m size and the rate of sale of thin grit is only ₹ 5/- per sq ft. and the production of grit size 20 mm and 40 mm is 80% and that of small size and sand is 20% meaning there by that the average rate of sale is only ₹ 8/20 per ft. excluding transport based on seized papers ( ANNEX 18/60) and if the amount of sales of ₹ 9487.962 as shown in the alleged seized paper is divided by this amount then the quantity comes to 1157069 eft. NOW if the trading account is re casted on this basis then the following figures will emerge: OPENING STOCK 2601225 SALES 9487 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pancy in our accounts which is supported by voucher which may suggest him for any additions. (iv) That in our line of business GP rate is generally about 10% and NP rate about 5%. However, in my case there is peculiar feature I have little sales in market and substantial sales are to my father Shri BL Somani who makes sales / supplies to railways wherein he is already showing NP. Considering these facts NP rate disclosed by me at 6.31% being very reasonable I submit it does not call for any interference. (v) In view of these facts I request for deletion of addition of ₹ 548805/- or to substitute it as per request made above. Besides during appeal proceedings I also filed a consolidated statement of disclosed GP and NP chart as per ROI filed from Ass.Year 2003-04 to 2008-09 with unsymmetry in their presentation (PB 57) as well as consolidated statement with symmetry in presentation of GP/NP for Ass.Year 2003-04 to 2008-09 (PB 58) and submitted that the learned AO has, while applying profit rate, deducted GP shown ₹ 157410/- in Ass.Year 2003-04; ₹ 305858/- in Ass.Year 2004-05; ₹ 370893/- in Ass.Year 2005-06; ₹ 326744/- in Ass.Year 2006-07, ₹ 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... others (PB 58). 5.09 In view of aforesaid facts I submit as under:- (i) Page 56-57 of Annexure 18 have no relevance to Ass.Year 2003-04 and it should not be applied in Ass.Year 2003-04; (ii) GP disclosed in Ass.Year 2008-09 has not been disputed by the learned AO. This GP is based on Trading Accounts prepared during audit u/s 44AB ( I was never subject to audit u/s 44AB earlier). In Ass.Year 2007-08 the learned AO has deducted NP (subject to depreciation) while arriving additions. In order to have symmetry in all 6 years I have recasted GP in all 6 years in PB 58. I submit the GP so arrived be deducted in all 6 years while computing additions if any based on GP rate. As GP with this consolidated statement prepared on symmetry basis in Ass.Year 2003-04 being 44.06% there is no room for any addition in Ass.Year 2003-04. (iii) In alternate I request your honour for application of NP rate at par to comparable case of M/s Maheshwari Crushers, Kota - Ass.Year 2007-08 (PB 225 & 226) i.e. 7.45% as against 6.31% disclosed (subject to depreciation) by me. 6.7 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the orders of the authorities below. 6.8 We have heard both the parties. The copi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e-24 pertains to her business activities and myself and my father Shri BL Somani were also telling the same thing. The learned AO has accepted the interest ₹ 150500/- disclosed by my mother Smt. Meena Somani in her assessment. One income is to be taxed at one place only. I may also submit that while completing assessment u/s 143(3) for Ass.Year 2008-09 in case of Smt. Meena Somani the learned AO has accepted the returned figures of loans and interest on loans and did not made any additions like earlier years. Copy of order is enclosed vide Annexure-D to this letter. In view of these facts I submit additions in my hands are uncalled for and it may be deleted." 7.4 The ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition after observing as under:- ''From the perusal of records it is found that advances in Annexure A-24 are disclosed by Smt.Meena Somani, mother of the appellant in her books of accounts. Interest income in respect of these advances has also been disclosed in returns filed by Smt. Meena Somani for various years. AO has not bothered to examine the details furnished along with return of income of Smt.Meena Somani either during assessment proceedings or remand proceedings. Moreover wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been made in the case of Smt. Meena Somani on the basis of the entries in Annexure A- 24. If that document is considered to be belonging to Smt. Meena Somani then the addition can be made in her hands on the basis of such documents and not in the hands of the assessee. The onus was on the revenue to establish that entries available in Annexure A-24 were relating to the assessee in the documents belonging to the assessee. We therefore, feel that ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition. ITA No. 619/ JP/2011 - Assessee - A.Y. 2004-05 8.1 The Ground No. 1 and 2 of the assessee are similar to the ground no. 1 and 2 of the assessee for the assessment year 2003-04. 8.2 Following our findings for the assessment year 2003-04, these Ground No. 1 and 2 of the assessee are dismissed. 9.1 Ground No. 3 (i) of the assessee is as under:- "That under the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming trading addition of ₹ 753999/- applying GP rate of 35% on disclosed sales of ₹ 3028156/- on basis of impounded papers found during survey - (Annexure 18 Page 56-57) which relates to Ass.Year 2007-08 / 2008-09 (both years partly) and which was pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - A.Y. 2005-06 13.1 The first ground of the assessee is the same as in the assessment year 2003-04. Following our findings for the assessment year 2003-04, this ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 14.1 The ground of appeal no.2(i) of assessee reads as under:- "That under the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming trading addition of ₹ 904582/- applying GP rate of 35% on disclosed sales of ₹ 3644210/- on basis of impounded papers found during survey - (Annexure 18 Page 56-57) which relates to Ass.Year 2007-08 / 2008-09 (both years partly) and which was prepared by accountant on flimsy figures in order to plan for Machinery Loan which has no match with the appellant's books of accounts." 14.2 The AO noticed that the papers found during the course of survey showed that the assessee has disclosed gross profit of 62.47% and net profit of 32.12% for the period from Jan. 2007 to 30th Nov. 2007 and therefore, the AO required the assessee to explain as to why the gross profit rate of 35% be not applied. Before the AO, the assessee submitted as under:- "It is pertinent to point out here that the normally the GP in the identi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... production of grit size 20 mm and 40 mm is 80% and that of small size and sand is 20% meaning there by that the average rate of sale is only ₹ 8/20 per ft. excluding transport based on seized papers ( ANNEX 18/60) and if the amount of sales of ₹ 9487.962 as shown in the alleged seized paper is divided by this amount then the quantity comes to 1157069 eft. NOW if the trading account is re casted on this basis then the following figures will emerge: OPENING STOCK 2601225 SALES 9487962 PURCHASES DABORA 2726441 STOCK NIL SALES TAX 410190 ROYALTY 250022 GRIT PURCHASE 174000 ------------ ------------ 6161908 9487962 Gross Profit 33 26054 Now on the above basis, if the P/L A/C is recasted then the following figures will emerge: RECASTED P/L ACCOUNT: EXPENSES AS SHOWN IN GROSS PROFIT THE, SAID PAPER 2879211 AS ABOVE 3326054 BANK INTEREST 100000 DEPRECIATIQN 100000 NET PROFIT 246843 So based on above paper the net profit subject to depreciation and bank interest comes to ₹ 446843/- only which yields a NP rate at 4.7! % against which the assessee has declared a NP rate of 5.87% meaning there by that the results declared by the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a consolidated statement of disclosed GP and NP chart as per ROI filed from Ass.Year 2003-04 to 2008-09 with unsymmetry in their presentation (PB 57) as well as consolidated statement with symmetry in presentation of GP/NP for Ass.Year 2003-04 to 2008-09 (PB 58) and submitted that the learned AO has, while applying profit rate, deducted GP shown ₹ 157410/- in Ass.Year 2003-04; ₹ 305858/- in Ass.Year 2004-05; ₹ 370893/- in Ass.Year 2005-06; ₹ 326744/- in Ass.Year 2006-07, ₹ 194184/- (it should be ₹ 1231262/-) in Ass.Year 2007-08; ₹ 2434466/- in Ass.Year 2008-09 which is because these accounts for different years are prepared by different accountants who have taken expenses in Trading A/c or P&L A/c as per their understanding. I therefore in PB 58 arranged it in symmetry to make it in match with each other. As disclosed GP of Ass.Year 2008-09 was based on audit u/s 44AB while preparing consolidated statements in symmetry I was guided by trading account and profit and loss account attached with ROI for Ass.Year 2008-09. As my GP for Ass.year 2005-06 with this presentation was giving GP rate of 39.31% I requested Hon'ble CIT(A) for deletion of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in all 6 years while computing additions if any. With this GP in Ass.Year 2005-06 being 39.31% there shall be no addition in Ass.Year 2005-06. (iii) In alternate I request your honour for application of NP rate at par to comparable case (PB 225 & 226) i.e. 7.45% as against 3.87% disclosed (subject to depreciation) by me.'' 14.6 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the orders of the authorities below. 14.7 We have heard both the parties and have perused the chart available at page 58 of the paper book. If the accounts are prepared on the same basis for different assessment years then net profit for different assessment years varies from 3.87% to 9.96%. The gross profit rate varies from 35.39% to 44.06%. After considering this chart and taking into account, the alternative request of the assessee, we feel that it will be fair and reasonable to apply net profit rate of 7.45% before depreciation. Accordingly, the ground of appeal of assessee is partly allowed. 15.1 The following ground of appeal 2(i) of the assessee and the ground of appeal no. 2 of the revenue are in respect of the same issue. Therefore, these grounds are being disposed off together. GOA no.3(i) of assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me should be applied. However, the Hon'ble CIT(A) did not accept my submissions and applied rate of 35% which is at par to rate applied by the learned AO and confirmed by him in case of disclosed sales thus giving relief of ₹ 582142/- (895603-313461). '' 15.3 Before us, the ld. AR has filed the submissions as under:- (i) That I am subject to sales tax and as such registered dealer under the provisions of Sales Tax Act. Sales Tax Authorities have not disputed my disclosed sales. Undisclosed turnover basis whereof is letter dated 12.04.2010 of Hon'ble Special Auditors (PB 227) as well as letter dated 26.05.2010 of learned AO (PB 87) which are without any supporting. It is therefore submitted that the same be brushed aside and addition sustained on basis of same by Hon'ble CIT(A) be deleted. (ii) In alternate I submit that even if my aforesaid submission is not accepted and undisclosed sales as worked by learned AO is retained NP rate of 3.87% (subject to depreciation) as per my books of accounts be applied (PB 58). (Reliance is made on CIT Vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar 186 CTR (MP) 419; Manmohan Sadani Vs.CIT 304 ITR 52 (MP) & CIT Vs. President Industries 158 CTR 372)(Guj)) or N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... profit @ 35% on unrecorded sales of ₹ 8,95,603/-, which gives figure of ₹ 3,13,461/-. AO is therefore directed to restrict addition to ₹ 3,13,461/- as against ₹ 8,95,603/- made by him under this head. Moreover as explained by appellant, the sale of ₹ 1,15,700/- are included in the figure of ₹ 8,95,603/-, there is no justification for separate addition of ₹ 1,15,700/- made by AO. Addition of ₹ 1,15,700/- is directed to be deleted. Ground No. 5(ii) is thus partly allowed." 18.4 We have heard both the parties. The special auditor after considering the impounded documents mentioned that sales to the extent of ₹ 8,95,603/- are to be verified. The report of the auditor is available at page 38 of the paper book. In this report, the auditor has referred to loose papers no. 97 and 98 in respect of sale of ₹ 1,15,700/- to M/s. Goodluck Crushers. This is included in the total of ₹ 8,95,603/-. Thus this sales stands included in ₹ 8,95,603/- and hence no separate addition was required to be made. Thus Ground No. 3 of the revenue is dismissed ITA No. 621/ JP/2011 -Assessee - A.Y. 2006-07 19.1 The first ground of appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2010, therefore it appears it was on guidance from Deptt. Besides in view of my submissions in earlier paras as audit has been carried ignoring principles of natural justice and also against the provisions of sec. 142(2A) and therefore I have made request for annulment of order. I am regd.dealer under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act and the learned ACTO, Circle-2(A), Kota vide his order dated _____________ has accepted my sales at ₹ 3529561/- which is in match with sales disclosed in Trading A/c attached with ROI. Copy of order is enclosed vide Annexure-J to this letter. Without prejudice to my request for annulment of order I submit unrecorded sales, even if taken by AO ignoring that it is not supported by any evidence, includes, sales of ₹ 913897/- which is appearing in accounts and for which working was given vide letter dated 03.06.2010 during assessment proceedings copy whereof is enclosed vide Annexure- K to this letter. This will reduce unrecorded sales to ₹ 1858687/- I submit that reasonable rate of 5% (at par to sec. 44AF) be applied thereon which shall bring addition to ₹ 92934/-. In alternate GP rate of 9.26%, as disclosed as per trading account, be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss profit rate of 35% as against the addition made by the AO to the extent of sales. Looking to our findings for the ground of appeal 2(i), we hold that net profit rate of 7.45% be applied and no further deduction is to be made from such estimated income. 24.1 Ground No. 2(iii) is in respect of addition of ₹ 9,08,609/- by applying of 35% for disclosed sales of ₹ 35,29,561/- on the basis of impugned papers found during the course of survey. 24.2 This issue has been decided in favour of the assessee in earlier years. Therefore, we hold that the gross profit rate of 35% cannot be applied on the basis of impugned papers relating to assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-09. 25.1 Ground No. 2(iv) was not pressed by the assessee during the course of hearing. Therefore, the same is dismissed being not pressed. ITA No. 595/ JP/2011 -revenue - A.Y. 2006-07 26.1 The first ground of appeal of the revenue is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition on account of unrecorded investment of ₹ 20.06 lacs. 26.2 This addition is based on Annexure A-24. We had already held that Annexure A- 24 belongs to Smt. Meena Somani and hence addition cannot be made in the hands o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome Tax we are two separate units he tfd. it there. It has been named as JCB Receipts by our accountant in ignorance because its payment partly was adjusted by my father from JCB Rent. In view of this fact I request your honour to please delete the additions." 29.4 The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions confirmed the addition after observing as under:- ''7.3 Argument of the appellant is not acceptable. No evidence has been filed regarding claim of appellant that the credits are from Daborawalas towards Dabora purchase, either before AO or the undersigned. Appellant claimed that due to mistake of accountant, the same has been termed as JCB receipts. No proof hi support of this claim was furnished at any stage and therefore this claim is not acceptable that due to mistake of accountant it is termed as JCB receipts, hi any case these receipts are not accounted for hi regular books of accounts of appellant'' 29.5 Before us, the ld. AR has submitted as under:- ''I request your honour that these credits relates to payment due to Daborawalas which I was failed to substantiate at assessment stage. I therefore request your honour to remit this issue back to the learned AO to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions of sec. 142(2A) and therefore I have made request for annulment of order. Alternatively I request that at the time of finalization of accounts many rough exercise is being made and therefore this was also a part of the same which is evident from the paper copy whereof is enclosed vide Annexure-J to this letter. In view of these facts I submit additions of ₹ 200000/- be deleted. I further submit that if this addition is sustained its set off be provided in next year." 30.4 The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions recorded his finding as under:- "Argument of the appellant that it was only a rough exercise is not acceptable. In the absence of satisfactory explanation regarding difference of ₹ 200000/- either before AO or the undersigned, the addition is justified and the same is confirmed. Alternative argument of the appellant is that if this addition is confirmed, credit for the same may be provided in subsequent year. This argument of the appellant is acceptable. Since the addition of ₹ 200000/- is confirmed on account of suppression in the value of closing stock for this year, credit for the same shall be allowed by AO in the subsequent year. For ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see filed the following. "It is pertinent to point out here that the normally the GP in the identical type of cases is 10%. It is also pertinent to joint out here that the quantity wise the production grit is 65 % of the DABORA purchase + opening stock. In the instant case on the perusal of the seized papers as mentioned by your good self it is found that neither the opening stock of DABORA is mentioned nor there is any mention of depreciation etc. Before going into the further details it is important to point out that the sales tax is ₹ 40/- per trolley and a trolley contains 5 tons material as normally considered by the Govt authorities. The royalty is ₹ 50 per ton. On the perusal of the papers as mentioned by your honor , it is found that the royalty has been mentioned at ₹ 250022/- which if divided by ₹ 50/- then the weight conies to 5000 trolleys and like wise the sales tax is ₹ 40 per trolley and if the amount of ₹ 410190/- is divided by ₹ 40/- then the number of trolleys come to 10255 meaning there by that the assesses has 5255 trolleys in the opening stock which has not been mentioned on those lose rough papers. The weight in tho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee has declared a NP rate of 5.87% meaning there by that the results declared by the assessee are better as compared to those shown on the alleged paper. It is re iterated that the said paper is neither in the hand writing of the assessee nor in the hand writing of his father. It is also pertinent to mention that there are more papers in the possession of the department which were seized at the time of survey and which yield lesser amount of profit or are in consonance with the results declared by the assessee.'' 32.3 However, the submissions made by the assessee were not accepted by the AO and the AO without making any further query applied the net profit rate of 35%. Before the ld. CIT(A) , the assessee submitted as under:- "At the out set I submit as audit has been carried ignoring principles of natural justice and as while conducting audit provisions of sec. 142(2A) are also not complied with therefore as findings of the auditors are the base of this addition these additions needs to be annulled. However without prejudice to above I further submit as under:- (i) The learned AO failed to appreciate this fact that these papers were prepared for Bank facilities wherei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Incorporation of figures of stock considering stock as on 31.03.2007 and 31.03.2008. (ii) Figures of further Dabora (stone) purchases to match sales and purchases - qua production per CFT of Dabora (stone) purchase and sale price per CFT. (iii) To consider Bank Intt, Fuel & Depreciation. These three expenses during period related to Ass.Year 2008-09 as per papers attached to ROI were ₹ 110572/-, 125171/- & 187648/- total ₹ 423391/- respectively - qua period covered (8 Months) total expenses shall be ₹ 282260/-. For item no.(ii) the best guiding factor may be our letter dated 30.06.2010 (supra). In last alternate the only guiding source may be rate of profit in comparable case. Need not out of place to mention there are about 10-12 crushers in my area. I therefore pray that additions either be deleted or substituted viz-a-viz comparable case." (vii) In view of these facts I request for deletion of addition of ₹ 908609/- or to substitute it as per request made above. Besides I also filed a Statement of disclosed GP and NP chart as per ROI filed from Ass.Year 2003-04 to 2008-09 with unsymmetry in their presentation (PB 57) as well as statement with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h addition. Hence, disallowance of ₹ 11,307/- confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is deleted. Thus Ground No. 2(i) of the assessee is allowed. ITA No. 596/ JP/2011 -revenue - A.Y. 2007-08 33.1 The first ground of appeal of the revenue is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition on account of unrecorded investment of ₹ 14,39,600/-. 33.2 We have heard both the parties. The addition has been made on the basis of Annexure A-24. We had already held in the case of the assessee for the earlier assessment years that Annexure A-24 belongs to Smt. Meena Somani. Therefore, the addition can be made in the hands of the assessee and the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of ₹ 14,39,600/-. 34.1 The third ground of appeal of the revenue is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition on account of provisions of Section 40A(3) of ₹ 9,42,663/-. 34.2 The AO noticed from the cash book that the assessee has made purchases / expenses of ₹ 9,42,663/- in cash. Such entries exceeded ₹ 20,000/- and therefore, the provisions of Section 40A(3) stands violated. The assessee submitted that he owns a crusher for which raw material is Dabroa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al for manufacturing gitti is being purchased from the persons who procured such material from the mines. Such persons are not having their bank account. It is not the case of the revenue that such persons are having their bank account or are selling the goods to other parties and receiving the payment through cheque. Moreover, books of accounts have been rejected. The Jaipur Bench is holding that in case the books of accounts are rejected then no disallowance u/s 40A(3) be made. It will be useful to reproduce our findings on this issue in the case of Shri Shankar Lal Khandelwala (ITA No. 392/ JP/2011 dated 12-08-2011). ''5.9 We have heard both the parties. The ld. AR during the course of proceedings before us has argued that no disallowance u/s 40A(3) can be made in case the books of accounts are rejected. Our attention was drawn towards the fact that the AO has rejected the books of accounts and has made the addition on account of construction and work in progress expenses and has also made disallowance of taxi running expenses. The addition made under both the heads are substantial. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. G.K. Contractors, 19 DTR 305 h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e first ground of appeal of the assessee is the same as raised in earlier assessment years. Following our findings for the earlier assessment years, we hold that the ld. CIT(A) was justified in referring the matter for special audit. 38.1 Ground No. 2(i) of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in estimating the profit rate of 35% on undisclosed sales of ₹ 18,39,789/- against disclosed net profit rate of 9.96^ as per trading account attached with the return of income. 38.2 Ground No. 4 of the revenue is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in restricting the addition on account of unrecorded business fro ₹ 60,49,841/- to ₹ 6,43,926/-. 38.3 Both these grounds relate to the same issue and therefore, these grounds are disposed off together.. 38.4 The special auditor on the basis of Annexure 21, A/9 and 15 reported that these Annexures contain the details of sales of ₹ 60,49,841/- for the year under consideration. The assessee submited that sales of ₹ 20,20,052/- is already recorded in the books of accounts and such sales are part of Annexure A-15 in which sales of ₹ 30,99,905/- have been reported by the special auditor. The assessee has also sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pplied. The Hon'ble CIT(A) accepted my submissions partly and applied rate of 35% on undisclosed sale of ₹ 1839787/- thus giving relief of ₹ 5405915/- (6049841-643926).'' 38.6 Before us, the ld. AR has submited as under:- ''(i) That I am subject to sales tax and as such registered dealer under the provisions of Sales Tax Act. Sales Tax Authorities have not disputed my disclosed sales (PB-75). Undisclosed turnover basis whereof is report of Hon'ble Special Auditors as well as letter dated 26.05.2010 of learned AO are without any base and due to my absence before audit team. It is therefore submitted that the same be brushed aside and addition sustained on basis of same by Hon'ble CIT(A) be deleted. (ii) In alternate I submit that even if my aforesaid submission is not accepted and undisclosed sales as worked by learned AO is retained NP rate of 9.96% (subject to depreciation) as per my books of accounts be applied (PB 58). (Reliance is made on CIT Vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar 186 CTR (MP) 419; Manmohan Sadani Vs.CIT 304 ITR 52 (MP) & CIT Vs. President Industries 158 CTR 372)(Guj)).'' 38.7 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the order of the AO. 38.8 We have heard b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he second ground of appeal of the revenue is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of excess expenses of ₹ 1,15,921/-. 41.2 The AO noticed that the assessee has made building expenses of ₹ 1,15,921/- and such expenses have been capitalized in plant and machinery a/c and depreciation @ 15% has been claimed. The assessee in response to query raised from the AO submitted that he has only claimed depreciation in the addition in building a/c which is as per law and rules. According to the AO, the assessee has claimed excess expenses to reduce the income. 41.3 Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has made following submissions. "In para 4 of his order, the learned AO has disallowed claim of ₹ 115921/- on the plea that it is shown in accounts as Building Expenses and as Building is not appearing in Balance Sheet therefore he has made addition of ₹ 115921/-. I submit I never claimed it as expense. It appears neither the Special Auditors nor the learned AO could understand it. During the year under reference I have installed one more new crusher at existing place itself wherein expenses of ₹ 115921/- has been spent on crusher platform which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the cash book that the assessee has increased the cash of ₹ 21.90 lacs by pencil in cash book without giving any credit in other account. The assessee was asked to explain the same. The assessee stated that the amount as shown is the amount of sale which has been shown as cash sales in the audited account. The assessee was asked to justify his claim but he failed to do so. Accordingly, the AO made the addition of ₹ 21.90 lacs. 42.3 Before the ld. CIT(A), assessee submited as under:- "In para 5 of his order, the learned AO has made addition of ₹ 2190000/- (increased cash written by pencil in cash book). I submit this is my cash sale which has been clubbed in sales while filing my ROI. In fact my accountant had taken total sales at ₹ 3907900/- but while finalizing books for ROI I found that correct sales is ₹ 4707900/- plus cash sales which is written in cash book in pencil ₹ 2190000/- and therefore I have taken in my Trading Account sales at ₹ 6897900/- (Rs.4707900 + ₹ 2190000). The same sales has been shown in my ROI as well as to Sales Tax Deptt. and it has been accepted by Sales Tax Authorities also. In para 4 of Special Auditor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ticed from the loose papers no. 53 of Annexure 18 that the assessee made an order from M/s. Labh Engineering Works for purchase of Crusher machine for ₹ 7.50 lacs. As per Annexure 14, it was noticed that the assessee has paid a sum of ₹ 4.12 lacs. The AO therefore, hold that a sum of ₹ 3.38 was paid outside the books of accounts. 43.3 Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted as under:- "In para 7 of his order, the learned AO has made addition of ₹ 338000/- on the reasoning that in Annexure 18 loose paper no. 53, there was an estimate from Laddha (it should be Labh) Engineering Works for ₹ 750000/- whereas bills is for ₹ 412000/- and payment of ₹ 412000/- only has been made for it. During assessment proceedings, we had submitted that earlier we were planning for big size crusher but as for it we were required to obtain loan from bank because crusher was to be supported by one more JCB and trucks we did not opt for big size machine and decided to go for small sized machine. We had filed copy of bill also wherefrom difference was verifiable. However, the learned AO did not accepted the plea and made additions. We are enclosing herewith ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13.01.2011 we explained it in detail and also filed copies of these all papers to him. A copy of letter and annexures were given to the learned AO also but he did not made any comments in this regard in his remand report. In view of these facts departmental appeal on this ground is not maintainable and their this ground of appeal be dismissed.'' 43.7 We have heard both the parties. The ld. AR has submitted that a copy of letter and Annexure were given to the AO but he did not make any comments in this regard in his remand report . The ld. CIT(A) has not mentioned about the remand report. The paper book also do not contain the copy of the remand report if any. Page no. 212 to 218 is the copy of letter dated 10-2-2011 to the ld. CIT(A) in respect of addition of ₹ 3.38 lacs. The assessee at page 218 of the paper book has mentioned that the facts has been confirmed by the supplier vide letter dated 6-09-2010. It does not mention about the remand report if any. The assessee vide letter dated 13-01-2011 available at page 197 to 211 of the paper book mentioned at page 208 that the difference in respect of sum of ₹ 7.50 lacs and ₹ 4.12 lacs is on account of purchasing of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
