AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (7) TMI 768
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....edings, the Assessing Officer (AO) observed several discrepancies. No details in respect of purchase of Rs.mutton', at Rs.13.30 lakhs, which constituted the highest purchase (for a single item), could be furnished. The assessee also could not furnish the purchase bills from M/s. A.A. Traders, Trivandrum , the main supplier, nor the quantitative details, i.e., in respect of Rs.chicken', the second major commodity purchased. The copies of some bills produced revealed them to be not serially numbered. Also, the assessee could not explain its method of billing as well as the recording of sales in respect of the air conditioned (AC) part of the restaurant, for which a separate bill counter was maintained. In fact, the assessee conceded to omissions therein vide its statement dated 18.12.2009. Further, the books revealed the disclosed gross profit (G.P.) rate, i.e., at 24%, to be on the lower side vis-a-vis that obtaining in the said trade. The GP rate of another such restaurant in the locality, i.e., Hotel Vayalil, Trivandrum , disclosed the G.P. rate of 43%. As such, it was inferred that there was a suppression in the gross profit between 15% to 20% and, accordingly, 15% of the disclos....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nted purchases itself revealed time gaps, i.e., for which there were no purchases, and which is not comprehensible in view of the regular sales, and also not feasible, given the limited stock that the restaurant could carry. Besides, the purchases were settled in cash, and no quantitative details in its respect could be furnished. The suppression in sales is also admitted. We, therefore, uphold the non-acceptance of the assessee's book results qua its trading profit. 4.2 Coming to the next issue of estimation, the same, without doubt, has to be on a reasonable basis, while we find that it stands enhanced from the disclosed 23.2% by 15%. The mistake in reckoning the difference obtaining in trading profit with reference to the comparable case and, by implication, the extent of suppression therein by the assessee, by the AO, is patent, in-as-much as the basis for arriving at the two G.P. rates, i.e., by the assessee and the comparable case, is clearly different. The Revenue's objection in this regard, i.e., of the same having not been examined by the AO, is not maintainable, as the document with reference to which the assessee states its case in this regard is the same on which the A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....u/s. 68. The assessee could not prove its case in any manner before the first appellate authority, resulting in the confirmation of the same. 6. Before us, the assessee has made a petition for production of additional documents. It is submitted that the information furnished earlier bore factual errors as he was dependent on his Accountant, Shri Raman Nair, aged 85, who was suffering from health-related problems, and could not reveal the correct facts due to memory loss. That he had, in fact, sold only one property, being 15 cents of land, an inherited property at Thirumala Village, as against the two stated earlier, to Smt. Ramla wife of Shri M.Mohammed r/o 5/1299, Kowdiar Gardens, Trivandrum, and received an ostensible sale consideration of Rs.7.5 lakhs, enclosing the copy of the sale deed dated May 12, 2006, as well as its written explanation (copy on record). The receipt by cheque on that date in the bank account (with Federal Bank, Trivandrum ) (No. SB 10841) is toward the same. The prior credit of Rs.7.5 lakhs, i.e., in cash on 11.5.2006, represents the amount received in excess over the documented consideration; the total sale consideration being Rs.15 lakhs. The third cred....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....before the Revenue authorities. As regards the admission of additional evidence, without doubt, the explanation being now advanced is at complete variance with that advanced earlier. It is also surprising indeed that the assessee was, even as asseverated by the ld. DR, unaware of the property transactions undertaken by him, and against which he had received lakhs of rupees. At the same time, it needs to be appreciated that the assessee does not gain in any manner by taking a different stand before us, and stating Rs.facts', which he knows are not true or can not be substantiated as so. This is as the same would in any case need to be positively established; the onus to prove its explanation on facts being only on the assessee. Rather, he runs the risk of exposing another of his property, i.e., apart from the two disclosed earlier, i.e., with reference to which he had hitherto sought to explain his case, to the Revenue, so that he had admittedly three properties. The Revenue's case on the other hand against the assessee remains essentially the same, i.e., absence of a satisfactory explanation. It cannot be therefore said that the averments being now made by the assessee have no rela....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....examined if the cheque proceeds (Cheque No. 743678) credited to the assessee's account (with Federal Bank) at Rs.7.5 lakhs on 12.5.2006 flows from the bank account of Smt. R.Ramla, the purchaser, or another. b). The assessee had admittedly computed the capital gains with reference to the acquisition cost of some other land, while the land sold is admittedly an inherited property. As such, the said fact would warrant revision of the cost of acquisition as well, consistent with the obtaining facts and law as applicable. Further, the computation of the said gains may also be impacted by section 50C of the Act. c). The assessee admits of having received an excess (over the documented) sale consideration, in cash, at Rs.7.5 lakhs, so that the actual sale consideration is at Rs.15 lakhs. The said credit/receipt could be considered as a part of the sale consideration only where the same is admitted to by the seller, else not, in which case it would be only a bald assertion. There being nothing on record to substantiate this claim, so that there is essentially no change in the assessee's case qua the same, which thus remains unproved. So, however, if and to the extent there is applicatio....