TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (1) TMI 673
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as undisclosed income. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.34,87,903/- made on account of excess stock found on the date of survey as undisclosed income. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing of the appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a sole proprietor of M/s Vyakt Studio Gallery and is engaged in the business of sale of potteries/sceneries and art work. The return for the year under consideration was filed on 31.3.2007 declaring a loss of Rs.2,26,811/-. A survey u/s 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d turnover. 3. Dissatisfied with the order, the assessee filed appeal before Ld CIT(A) and submitted as under:- i) That on 23rd December, 2005 a survey u/s 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted at the premises of the appellant and 8 items of paintings with a selling price of Rs.32,46,500/- and 47 items of potteries with the selling price of Rs.3,91,402/- were inventorised by the survey team and three receipt books indicating receipt of work of arts from the artists were impounded by the Department. ii) That the business model adopted by the appellant was to receive the work of art in the form of painting, potteries on consignment basis from various artists and to display the same in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... which is clear from the facts that in the calculation made in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer had taken the figure at Rs.15 lakhs instead of Rs.10 lakhs as discussed in the assessment order. viii) That the Ld Assessing Officer had completely ignored the fact that in previous two assessments of the appellant, the assessment was completed after accepting the returned turnover. ix) That Sales Tax Department has been regularly accepting the turnover of the appellant. x) That appellant had scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) in the assessment year 2005-06 wherein the Assessing Officer had accepted the returned income. xi) That Ld Assessing Officer has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sidering the said information and without any addition. 4. The Ld CIT(A) after going through the submissions of assessee deleted the additions made by Assessing Officer. 5. Aggrieved, the revenue filed appeal before this Tribunal. 6. At the outset, the Ld Dr argued that onus was on the assessee to prove that stock did not belong to her and was on consignment basis. Pointing out at assessment order, the Ld DR invited our attention to the fact that in spite of opportunities allowed the assessee was not able to reconcile the physical stock on the date of survey with the stock as per her books and further argued that confirmation from the suppliers were provided only after seizure and these were not filed before the Assessing Officer. ....