TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (7) TMI 289
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... wherein the assessee's income was determined at Rs. 26,96,000, in view of an addition of Rs. 25,64,032 towards suppressed profits. 2.2 In the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer verified the books of account vis-à-vis the books and documents impounded during survey and noticed discrepancies in both the purchases and sales reported in the books of account. As per the Assessing Officer, there were differences in purchases and sales for the months of July, August and September, 2006 between the regular books of account and the books impounded during the survey to the extent of Rs. 1,43,64,108 and Rs. 1,69,28,140 respectively. Therefore, the Assessing Officer issued a show cause letter dt.23.12.2009 to the assessee proposing to add the unaccounted purchases of Rs. 1,43,64,108 and also 10% of the sales as the gross profit on unaccounted sales. The assessee's explanations regarding these discrepancies were called for. The assessee filed reply vide letter dt.30.12.2009. The assessee's contention was that the discrepancies were only due to wrong entries made by his semi-skilled employees, who mixed up the transactions and inter-changed the entries b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ls), Mysore dt.29.11.2011 for Assessment Year 2007-08, the assessee preferred a further appeal before this Tribunal. A coordinate bench of this Tribunal vide order in ITA No.230/Bang/2012 dt.26.12.2012 remanded the matter to the file of the CIT (Appeals), Mysore, holding as under at para 7 thereof :- " 7. Having heard both the parties and having considered the rival contentions, we find that the AO has made the addition on difference between the purchases and sales. Both the authorities below seem to have overlooked the fact that the sales also included the gross profit and that the same will have to be excluded from the sales for arriving at the net taxable income. Neither the AO nor the CIT(Appeals) have really applied their mind to the above legal position. In view of the same and in the interest of justice, we deem it fit and proper to remand the issue to the file of the CIT(Appeals) to verify the statement of the assessee with regard to the wrong entries made in its books of accounts and after examination of the same to also look into the proportion of the gross profit embedded in the sales. Needless to mention that the assessee shall be given a fair opportunity of hearing." ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is barred. 10. In case the accompanying appeal is to be considered as belated, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the said appeal could not have been filed by the appellant within the time specified under Section 253(3) of the IT Act as the said order was not received on 27.6.2013 and as such the delay, if any, so caused is due to reasonable causes and is liable to condone. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances the appellant could not have filed the said appeal till now. Therefore the appellant prays that the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal may, please, condone the delay so caused, if any, in filing the said appeal and may please admit the said appeal under Section 253(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in order to render justice to the appellant." 7.2 We have heard the rival contentions of both the learned Authorised Representative for the petitioner and the learned Departmental Representative for Revenue in the matter of condonation of delay and perused and carefully considered the material on record. According to the learned CIT (Appeals), the impugned appellate order was served on the assessee on 9.10.2013. In these circumstances, the petitioner's ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....interest under Section 234B & 234C of the Act respectively. The charging of interest is consequential and mandatory and the Assessing Officer has no discretion in the matter. This proposition has been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anjum H Ghaswala (252 ITR 1) and we, therefore, uphold the action of the Assessing Officer in charging the said interest. The Assessing Officer is, however, directed to recompute the interest chargeable u/s. 234B and 234C of the Act, if any, while giving effect to this order. 11.1 Grounds at S.Nos. 2 to 4 relate to the grievance of the assessee against the impugned order of the learned CIT (Appeals) in confirming the addition of Rs. 25,64,832 made on account of differences in accounting the purchases and sales in the books of account found during the course of survey vis-à-vis the assessee's audited books of accounts. 11.2 Before us, the learned Authorised Representative of the assessee besides reiterating the contentions made before the authorities below, submitted that if at all the addition has to be made, it should only be Rs. 1,68,288 and not Rs. 25,64,032 as was made by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the learn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s for these unaccounted sales and purchases which were rejected by the Assessing Officer as these claims were not supported by evidence. The reasons for rejection of the assessee's contentions are elaborated in the order of assessment, which need not be reproduced here. Thereupon, the assessee filed revised accounts, recasting the accounts by including the unaccounted purchases and unaccounted sales therein. As per the re-cast accounts, the income of the assessee increases to Rs. 11,61,255 as compared to the net profit of Rs. 92,458 as per the assessee's audited accounts and the details filed with the return of income for Assessment Year 2007-08, i.e. the period under consideration. The closing stock as per the re-cast accounts is substantially different from the closing stock in the audited accounts; which has not been properly explained by the assessee. 11.5.2 We find that the contentions of the assessee at various stages of assessment and appellate proceedings have been inconsistent. In the submissions made before the Assessing Officer vide letter dt.30.12.2009, the assessee contended that the differences in purchases and sales were due to wrong entries made by its empl....