TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (4) TMI 582
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... gross total income of Rs. 9,66,180/-. AO completed the assessment and assessed the income of the assessee at Rs. 1,53,92,693. Aggrieved, assessee filed appeal before the CIT (A). 3. With respect to addition of Rs. 16,13,275 on account of difference in sales as reported to the Commercial Tax Officer and as recorded in the books of accounts, AO compared the figures of sales as per VAT returns and Trading account in the books of the assessee on the one hand and the sales as reported by the CTO Jadcherla vide her letter dated 23.11.2011 in response to the enquiry from the AO, on the other hand and found a difference of Rs. 16,13,275 as follows: Sales as per VAT returns provided by the assesse VAT (Rs.) 83,31,10,720 CST....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....I have considered the facts on record. There is very clearly a discrepancy between the certificates dated 16.06.2011 and dated 23.11.2011, both issued by the CTO Jadcherla. The proper course for the AO would have been to refer the matter to the CTO for verification. Though this has not been done, I find that reconciliation of the discrepancy is possible on the basis of the other documents and information available on record". 4.4 The turnover of Rs. 10,03,68,648 is evidenced by the monthly return for VAT for December, 2008 as well as the certificate of the CTO, Zadcherla dated 16.06.2011. Further as pointed out by the AR, the computation of tax does not match with the turnover reflected in the certificate dated 23.11.2011. The fact that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d on by the AO, the tax shall be taken at Rs. 40,14,746. Such tax is worked out at 4% of the turnover. At the rate of 4% the tax of Rs. 40,14,746 would be correct, if the output is taken at Rs. 10,03,68,648, whereas if the figures shown is Rs. 10,19,71,512 were to be true, the tax payable would work out to Rs. 40,78,860. Hence, it was brought to the notice of the AO that there is an error in the VAT ledger a/c. Hence we confirm the order of the CIT (A) wherein he has held that the fact of the miss-match and the turnover in the certificate dated 23.11.2011 support the view that the figure reflected in the certificate dated 16.6.2011 is the correct figure. This ground of appeal is decided against the Revenue. 10. Ground Nos. 4 & 5 raised b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....OTAL Rs.81,87,97,740 12. The AO held that the taxable raw materials (S.No.1 to 4 as per schedule above) amounted to Rs. 48,47,74,740 whereas the taxable raw materials as per the VAT return was Rs. 47,50,15,042. He brought the difference of Rs. 97,59,696 to tax as an excess claim of purchases. 13. In the course of appellate proceedings, the AR has submitted that all the purchases were supported by the requisite vouchers and evidences and the AO had also not found any evidence to the contrary. The AR also submitted that the total purchases, including both taxable and exempt purchase, as per the books tallied with the figures in the VAT returns. 14. The CIT (A) examined the facts as stated in the assessment order and as s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd whereas the exempted turnover was Rs. 33,40,23,000 as against the figures shown in the table of Rs. 47,50,15,042 and Rs. 34,36,95,803. According to the AO there is a difference of Rs. 97,59,696 in the exempted raw material purchases and therefore, arrived at such an addition in the assessment order. 17. It was submitted that such an addition is not justifiable as the total purchases according the assessee and according to the AO is the same. In the circumstances, no addition should have been made by the AO. 18. The ld Counsel for the assessee further explained the difference as arrived at by the AO as follows: " It can be seen at pages 3 and 4 the details of the sales tax paid on the purchases are noted. The total taxable purcha....