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>ITAT upholds CIT(A) decisions on unaccounted income & GP rate, citing lack of evidence.</h1> <h3>Dy. CIT Circle-6, Surat Versus M/s. Rupali Dyg. & Ptg. Mills</h3> Dy. CIT Circle-6, Surat Versus M/s. Rupali Dyg. & Ptg. Mills - TMI Issues Involved:1. Deletion of addition of unaccounted income2. Deletion of addition due to fall in GP rateDeletion of Addition of Unaccounted Income:The case involved a dispute regarding the addition of Rs.15,55,285 made on account of disclosure of unaccounted stock by the assessee. The Revenue contended that the deletion of the addition by the CIT(A) was unjustified as the assessee had initially provided a value for the stock during the survey. On the other hand, the assessee argued that the valuation was based on estimation during the survey and provided documentary evidence supporting a different value. The ITAT observed that the assessee had offered the sale value of the undisclosed stock for taxation in its return, not the full investment value. The ITAT also noted that the AO did not investigate the evidence provided by the assessee. Referring to legal precedent, the ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the Revenue failed to disprove the assessee's claim that the unaccounted stock was sold at a higher value. The ITAT concluded that no infirmity existed in the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding this issue.Deletion of Addition Due to Fall in GP Rate:The second issue pertained to the deletion of an addition of Rs.1 lakh made by the AO due to a fall in the Gross Profit (GP) rate. The AO contended that the fall in GP rate indicated income suppression, leading to the addition. However, the CIT(A) found the assessee's explanation broadly acceptable and deleted the addition. The ITAT concurred with the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the AO did not specify any defects in the assessee's explanation to warrant the addition. Consequently, the ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s order on this issue and rejected the Revenue's appeal.General Adjudication:The ITAT mentioned that the third and fourth grounds of the Revenue's appeal were general in nature and did not require separate adjudication. Therefore, these grounds were not individually addressed. Ultimately, the ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the decisions of the CIT(A) on both issues discussed in the judgment.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
