TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Partially Allows Appeal on Cash & Stock Discrepancies</h1> <h3>Smt. Ansuyaben G. Kachhadia, Prop. M/s. Damanganga Steel Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Vapi Circle, Income Tax Office, Vapi.</h3> Smt. Ansuyaben G. Kachhadia, Prop. M/s. Damanganga Steel Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Vapi Circle, Income Tax Office, Vapi. - TMI Issues:1. Addition of excess cash found during survey2. Addition of stock difference3. Set off of disclosed incomeIssue 1: Addition of Excess Cash Found During SurveyThe appellant contested the addition of Rs. 2,00,000 as excess cash found during a survey, arguing that it was disclosed along with the income and should not be separately added. The AO found a discrepancy in the cash balance between the survey and the books of accounts, leading to the addition. The CIT(A) partially allowed the appeal, reducing the addition to Rs. 1,87,966 based on the difference found. The appellant further argued that the entire disclosed income included the excess cash, and hence, the separate addition was unjust. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the AO for verification to ascertain if the Rs. 2,00,000 was already included in the disclosed amount, emphasizing cooperation from the appellant for the verification process.Issue 2: Addition of Stock DifferenceRegarding the addition of Rs. 2,24,714 as stock difference, the AO added the amount due to a significant variance between the book stock and the FIFO method calculation during assessment. The CIT(A) upheld the addition, stating that the FIFO method was correct, including transportation and loading charges in stock valuation. The appellant argued that the stock statement submitted did not include these charges, and the valuation was based on the survey party's assessment. However, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, as the appellant failed to provide substantial evidence to refute the stock difference, resulting in the dismissal of this ground of appeal.Issue 3: Set Off of Disclosed IncomeThe appellant raised a general ground seeking the deletion of the disclosed income of Rs. 41 lakhs. This ground was not extensively argued and pressed, leading to its dismissal without detailed adjudication. Consequently, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal concerning the excess cash addition but dismissed the appeal regarding the stock difference, maintaining the CIT(A)'s decision.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
