TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (9) TMI 610
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....running of solvent extraction plant and sale of Rice Bran oil and Mustard oil etc. During the assessment year under consideration, the assessee has filed the return showing details of income of Rs. 24,73,110/.The case was selected for the scrutiny. During scrutiny the A.O. after seeking clarification from the assessee has made additions which were not only deleted by the first appellate authority but also by the Tribunal. Still not being satisfied, the department has filed the present appeal. 3. A Division Bench of this court on 21.7.2009 has admitted the appeal on the following three substantial questions of law; Ist Question Whether the finding of the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal that the Assessing Officer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s not satisfactory. He further submits that the explanation given before the CIT(A) was not explained before the A.O. No supporting evidence with regard to share application money was also brought on record. Lastly, he justified the assessment made by the A.O. 6. Sri Amit Shukla, learned counsel for the assessee has justified the impugned order passed by the Tribunal as well as CIT (A). He submits that the opening balance in the account of Ashish Pandey and Rakesh Pandey was Rs. 1 Crore which was relating to the previous year. It was having two elements, i.e un-secured loan of Rs. 60 lac; and share capital money of Rs. 40 lac, total of which comes to Rs. 1 crore. He also submits that though the amounts were mentioned separately for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the balance sheet. If the said sum has been transferred to the head "Unsecured Loan", obviously Rs. 40 Lac is a part of Rs. 1 crore only. In the instant case, no money has gone out from the books of accounts. It is merely adjustment of entries i.e transfer of the figure from one head to another head. The assessee has duly filed copies of ledger account for the years 2001-02; and 2002-03 before the A.O. on which he has not given any findings which were provided in the books of account as well as the balance sheet of the earlier year and the current year, hence the addition is based only on the presumption. The assessee has only figured out the entire "share application" money to another head during the financial year 2001-02.The inference d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... grievance of the assessee is pertaining to the addition of Rs.75,000. From the perusal of schedules forming part of P and L A/c as on 31.2.2003, it appears that in serial No.15, a sum of Rs. 1,86,260 has been shown as "recovery" under the head "cash found short in the chest". The loss was debited under the head "cash suspension". The said amount was taken by the cashier and the same was returned during the next year. The A.O. was not satisfied, so he made addition which was deleted not only by the first appellate authority but also by the Tribunal. 12. With this background, Sri Chopra submits that the assessee has not debited Rs.40,000.00, 20,000.00 and 15,000.00 on 18.6.2002, 15.7.2002, and 17.7.2002 respectively in cash book for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the revenue. IIIrd Question "Whether the finding of the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal that the Assessing Officer has not given any finding while adding Rs. 17,18,494.00 under the head HSD and fuel paddy husk, while ignoring that the Assessing Officer has categorically stated in his order that the assessee had furnished different figures of Fuel HSD and fuel husk right from filing of return till to furnishing of replies during the course of assessment proceedings and therefore, in the absence of positive evidence the amount of Rs.17,18,894.00 is being treated to have not incurred in this account was not perverse." 14. The A.O. found certain discrepancies in the account with regard to the consumption of High ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it was rightly added by the A.O. to the total income of the assessee. The purchases made of HSD and Husk which do not relate to business activities and have been made out of books of account. Lastly, he justified the A.O. order. 16. On the other hand, Sri Amit Shukla, learned counsel for assessee justified the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. 17. After hearing both the parties and on perusal of record, it appears that so far as the quantity of HSD and paddy husk are concerned, there is no dispute. It has been fully reconciled and verifiable from the ledger mentioned by the A.O. The books of accounts were not rejected nor any defect was pointed out by the A.O., so, there cannot be any ad-hoc addition. The assessee has s....