TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1304X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome Tax Appeal No. 139 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 18-1-2018 - Hon'ble Bharati Sapru And Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari, JJ. For the Appellant : Praveen Kumar For the Respondent : Anoop Trivedi ORDER Heard Sri Praveen Kumar, learned Counsel for the department and Sri Vibhu Rai, Advocate holding brief of Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Counsel for the assessee. This is an appeal filed by the department under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2007-08 against the order of the Tribunal dated 18.12.2015. The questions of law sought to be answered are hereunder :- (A) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT was justified in law by upholding the addition of ₹ 1,31 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed on 29.10.2007 after claiming the exemption u/s 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred as the 'Act'). The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and, thereafter, a notice under Sections 143 (2) and 142 (1) along with questionnaire was issued. Compliance had been made by the Chartered Accountant. The firm of the assessee is situated at NOIDA Special Economic Zone and 100% export sales oriented unit. The export sales amounting to ₹ 58,81,29,823.00 has been shown, the gross profit had been shown to the tune of ₹ 4,51,06,063.00 showing the GP rate of 7.67%. The net profit had been earned to the tune of ₹ 3,33,48,394.00 from 100% Export sales. Since the unit is located at NSEZ, the profi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Assessing Officer, therefore, passed a detailed order and accordingly accepted the books of accounts but has assessed the income of ₹ 1,31,00,000/- on the amount surrendered on account of suppression of stock manufacturing charges and difference in books of account. Aggrieved with the order of the assessment, the assessee had filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who vide its order dated 24.08.2011 had upheld the addition of ₹ 1,31,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of suppression of stock and difference in books of account. Against the order dated 24.08.2011 the assessee had filed an appeal before the ITAT and the ITAT vide order impugned dated 18.12.2015 had upheld the addi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d defective books and it was for this reason that the two heads led to the addition of ₹ 1,31,00,000/- that is 12 kgs. gold and ₹ 11 lacs for incomplete and defective goods. The Tribunal records that in the present case, it is an admitted fact that the assessee was engaged in the manufacturing of jewellery. During the process of manufacturing on behalf of the customers, the gold wastage in the range of 1.65 to 1.85% was recovered from the gold of the customers, the said wastage was due to dust, impurities etc. and out of the said wastage the assessee was allowing 1% wastage to its worker. In this matter, the assessee was saving gold to the extent of 0.6% to 0.85% and recovered gold accumulated to that extent of 12 kg. The gol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... export business of the assessee. As regards to the another addition of ₹ 11 lakhs is concerned, the said amount was disclosed by the assessee itself to cover up the various discrepancies found during the course of survey but that discloser was also related to the regular business of the assessee and it was not from the sources other than the business. On the said income of ₹ 11 lakhs disclosed by the assessee, the exemption u/s 10A of the Act was available. Insofar as the issue relating the survey under Section 133A of the Act was concerned, it was conducted on 03.08.2006, the same could not be said to have any evidentiary value in view of the fact that when a statement is recorded under Section 133A, the officer recording ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
