TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (8) TMI 696
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it has been found that no such details were furnished by you. 2. During the course of survey, it was claimed that as per books of accounts the closing stock as on 15-02-2007 was under: (i) Raw Material Rs. 1,02,80,915/- (ii) Semi finished goods Rs. 97,757/- (iii) Finished goods Rs. 23,26,099/- Rs. 1,27,02,099/- 3. Whereas the stock physically found was as under :- (i) Finished goods Rs. 1,94,29,307/-. 4. Accordingly the difference in stock at Rs. 67,26,537/- was admitted and during the course of statement recorded in 133A not invest on 15.02.2007 was admitted at Rs. 59,97,884/- and therefore on such undisclosed income advance tax payment of Rs. 15,00,000/- was agreed to be paid. 5. During the course of submission on 18.12.2009, it was explained that out of total undisclosed income at Rs.55 lakhs, an amount of Rs. 40,00,000/- is shown under the head Reserve and Surplus and further amount of Rs.15,00,000/- was shown in goods in process. However, on going through the balance sheet, the amount shown in Reserve and Surplus is only Rs. 25,00,00/- is shown and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rs. 400000/- (viii) 24.11.2006 Rs. 51000/- (ix) 21.12.2006 Rs. 900000/- Unless the source of creditors are satisfactorily explained, the transactions cannot he treated as genuine. Besides above, in the aforesaid bank account, there are deposits of money by way of drafts of Rs. 250000/- on 22/5/2006 and Rs. 300000/- on 21/5/2006. The source of deposits of Rs.550000/- are not known. Unless all these transactions are explained the cash credits cannot be treated as genuine. Moreover, there are credits from SB Account No. 141, CA 1345 and CA 1241, unless copies of all these bank accounts are produced for verification the same cannot be treated as explained particularly in absence of any copy of balance sheet as on 31-03-2006 & 31-03-2007. 10. In respect of credit of Rs. 642780/- in the name of Patel Purviben Dahyabhai, it has been claimed that on received of Rs. 642780/- from M/S. Aone Coated Abrasive the said amount is advanced to the assessee but on going through the copy of Bank account No. 9190, there are following credits and debits. (i) 18,4.2006 Rs. 250000/- (ii) 19.4.2006 Rs. 2500....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....opy of Balance sheet as on 31-03-2006 & 31-03- 2007 the aforesaid transactions cannot be treated as genuine. 12. In respect of transactions cash credits in the name of Patel Narayanbhai N. HUF of Rs. 10,800/-, the copy of bank account reveal the tally of credits and debits. (i) Rs. 80013.38 on 28.4.2006. (ii) Rs. 30864.44 on 3.8.2006 (iii) Rs. 259324 on 19.3.2007 transferred to A/c. No. CA 1536. In absence of copies of Balance sheet as on 31-03-2006 & 31-03-2007, the same cannot be treated as explained. 13. In respect of Patel Manjulaben Mahendrakumar, an amount of Rs. 271223 was sent to A/c. No. CA 1536 on 19-3-2007, the said transactions may be explained by furnishing copy of said bank account. 14. In respect if creditor Smt. Maniben Ambalal Patel there is deposit of Rs. 331500/- on 29-04-2006, and Rs. 175119/- on 29-07-2006 from A/c. No.CA 1349. From the said account a sum or Rs. 331500/- was sent to Multi Poly Ltd. On 29-04-2006. Rs. 175719/- was transferred on 29-07-2006 and Rs. 485288/- on 19-03-2007. In absence of copy of balance sheet as on 31-03-2006 & 31-03-2007....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aterial, the transaction cannot be treated as explained. 21. In the account of Kanitlal Rasikbhai Patel there is transfer of Rs.200000/- on 19/3/2007 to A/c. No.1526. In absence of copy of said bank A/c. the transactions cannot be treated as explained. 22. In respect of Dahyabhai Jethabhai Patel, there were deposits as under: (i) 18-5-2006 Drafts Rs. 90,000/- (ii) 18-5-2006 TRF, CXA No.1345 Rs. 595000/- (iii) 22-8-2006 -do- Rs. 115200/- (iv) 6-12-2006 TRF Rs. 90000/- 23. In respect of account of Dahyabhai Jethabhai Patel,HUF the money of Rs. 40000/- was credited after receipt Rs. 45000/- by draft on 17-5-2006 from Smt. Shuahilben Kacharalal Patel. As there is no balance sheet as on 31-3-2006 & 31-3-2007 of the creditor and in absence of copy of the bank account of Smt, Shushilaben the transactions cannot be treated as genuine. 24. In the copy of Bank account No. 11888 of Bhavinkumar K. Patel, an amount of Rs. 195710 was sent to the bank account CA 1536. In absence of the copy of said bank account, the credits cannot be treated as genuine. 25. In the copy o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the interest of venue. I, therefore propose to issue appropriate direction u/s.263 of the IT Act setting aside the said assessment with a direction to frame de novo assessment. Please explain why no such direction should be issued. Your case is fixed for hearing on 6-12-2010 11.30A.M." In response to the notice dated 25.11.2010, the assessee also filed reply dated 03.01.2011. The ld. CIT held that the assessee had submitted various details vide letter dated 02.09.2009 before the ld. A.O. which include the copy of trading account, p&l account, balance sheet on the date of survey & upto 31.03.2007 and disclosure made u/s. 133A of Rs.40,00,000/- had been shown by the assessee. The appellant before CIT also stated the reasons for fall of GP and submitted the revised working of net profit which was minus at Rs.6,41,930/- as on the date of survey i.e. 15.02.2007. The assessee had made another submission on 24.01.2011 before the CIT and had furnished another revised working of net profit of Rs.38,38/- as on the date of survey. The contention of the appellant that all the particulars, items relating to manufacturing and trading account had been submitted before the A.O. up to the date o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nk account and to obtain further necessary details, to examine the details and make necessary inquiry and decided accordingly, directed by the CIT. The ld. CIT further relied in case of East Asiatic Co. (India) Ltd. V. State of Madras (1956) 7 STC 299 (mad.) and held that the A.O. cannot sit on the evidence furnished by the appellant but investigate and ascertain the truth of the case. He further relied upon following cases: (i) Ram Pyari Devi Saraogi v CIT (1968) 67 ITR, 84 (SC) (ii) Tara Devi Aggarval v CIT (1973) 88 ITR, 323 (SC) (iii) Gee Vee Enterprises v Addl. CIT (1975) 99 ITR, 375 (Del.) (iv) CIT v Pushpa Devi (1988) 173 ITR, 445 (Pat.) (v) K.A. Ramaswamy Chettair v. CIT (1996) 220 ITR, 657 (Mad.) (vi) CIT v Shree Manjumathesware Packing Products and Comphor Works (1998) 231 ITR, 53 (SC) He further relied upon the case of Venkatakrishna Rice Co. v CIT (1987) 163 ITR, 129 (mad.), Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v CIT (2000) 243 ITR, 83(SC). The ld. CIT held that the order dated 24.12.2009 of the A.O. is erroneous and prejudice to the interest of the Revenue and accordingly he set a....