9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 66X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ward -21(1)(1), Mumbai [AO] u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act,1961 on 30/12/2010 wherein the assessee has been saddled with additions of Rs,55,90,559/-, which are the subject matter of this appeal. 2. During impugned AY, the assessee being resident firm was engaged as wholesale trader in bulk drugs, medicines, chemicals and supplies to municipal hospitals and dispensaries. During year under consideration, the assessee was subjected to survey action u/s 133A on 07/02/2008 wherein the assessee declared an amount of Rs. 55,90,590/- to account for discrepancies found in stock, cash, investment made in renovation of office, furniture and fixture and liability which ceased to exist. The break-up of the same was as follows:- No. Particulars A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he premise that additions without any corroborative evidence could not be sustained in law. The observation and the basis of conclusion as drawn by Ld. First appellate authority has been given in para 3.3 of the impugned order. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us. 4. The Ld. Departmental Representative [DR] contested the stand of Ld. first appellate authority by submitting that the conduct of the assessee do not prove bona fide of retraction of statement and the assessee had no plausible explanation for statement made during survey proceedings and therefore, the additions were justified. It was further contended that the assessee was under no pressure to make a surrender of the impugned amounts and retraction of the state ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f factual in nature and the decision has to be arrived at on the basis of factual matrix and observations made by lower authorities during assessment & appellate proceedings. 6. So far as the addition of Rs. 10.58 Lacs towards excess investment in furniture & fixture is concerned, we find that the same has purely been made on an estimated basis only without appreciating the books of accounts. No working has been given anywhere to arrive at the impugned amount. The same appears to have been made merely on a guess work in a very mechanical manner and therefore, the same could not be sustained. Hence, the stand of Ld. first appellate authority, in this regard, stand confirmed. Similarly, the addition of Rs. 3.12 Lacs u/s 41(1) on account of r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as the last addition of excess cash found during survey proceedings is concerned, we find that stand of revenue plausible one. It is noted that the addition represent excess cash found at the time of survey proceedings, which the partners of the assessee firm also admitted by way of statement during survey. Now, merely by way of retraction, the aforesaid fact could not be negated. No effort has been made by the assessee to reconcile the actual cash found vis-à-vis cash as per books of accounts on the date of survey rather the Ld. AR is merely harping on the point that the statement was made by the partners under pressure. We are not convinced with the same since the complete onus to reconcile the cash balance on the date of survey re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
