TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 269
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9-10 vide his separate orders dated 26.11.2010 and 19.12.2011. As the issues involved in both the appeals are identical, they are taken up together and disposed off by a common order for the sake of convenience. ITA No. 2217/Kol/2013- Asst Year 2008-09 - Assessee Appeal 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds in Asst Year 2008-09:- "1. For that the initiation of proceeding and completion of assessment have been bad-inlaw and void ab initio. 2. For that the completion of appeal by Ld. CIT on exparty without giving any reasonable opportunity to assessee which is bad-in-law. 3. For that the determination of profit on the basis of percentage is based on guess work which is bad-in- law. 4. For that the disallowance of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....from withdrawals made earlier. The Learned AO found that no evidence was produced by the assessee for redeposit and hence the Learned AO treated the entire credits in bank accounts as derived from sale proceeds of the assessee. The Learned AO further observed that the assessee has shown sundry debtors of Rs. 2,66,907/- as no evidence was filed by the assessee to prove that the same are sundry debtors. The Learned AO treated the entire transactions as turnover of the assessee to the tune of Rs. 1,10,12,707/- (67,85,600 + 39,60,200 + 2,66,907) and the Learned AO determined the undisclosed turnover at Rs. 71,90,737/- after reducing the disclosed turnover in the books of Rs. 38,21,970/-. He applied the profit percentage offered by the assessee ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... observed that the assessee has shown total purchases of Rs. 37,02,949/- in the return and whereas as per the information obtained and as per assessee's submission, the following purchases were made by the assessee:- M/s Ultratech Cement Ltd Rs. 28,27,500 M/s Grasim Industries Ltd Rs. 3,49,880 Stone Cheeps, Sand etc Rs. 98,303 Rod Rs. 13,52,446 Rs. 46,28,129 Less: Purchases disclosed by the assesee Rs. 37,02,949 Difference Rs. 9,25,180 The Learned AO found that since no satisfactory explanation was offered by the assessee for the difference of Rs. 9,25,180/- as worked out above, he brought the same to tax as income from undisclosed sources. 3.5. The Learned AO observed that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ddition of Rs. 5,81,730/- thereon, there is no need to make further addition towards difference in the balance of sundry creditors to the tune of Rs. 4,39,945/-; addition towards difference in purchase of materials amounting to Rs. 9,25,180/- as the same would get covered in the addition made in the sum of Rs. 5,81,730/- itself. His argument was that the assessee was buying materials from the same suppliers i.e M/s Ultratech Cement Ltd, M/s Grasim Industries Ltd etc for both its accounted and unaccounted transactions. Hence obviously there is bound to be difference in the closing balance of the suppliers account. Similarly there will be difference in value of purchases also. He argued that the difference in value of purchases would only get....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rs. 5,81,730/- is nothing but the income earned by the assessee from his undisclosed business. This receipt is outside the books of the assessee. Correspondingly, any payments / investments made outside the books of the assessee would be entitled for telescoping and hence we direct the Learned AO to delete the additions made in the sum of Rs. 1,78,496/- towards investment in security deposit with M/s Ultratech Cement Ltd and difference in bank balance to the tune of Rs. 9,368/-. Similarly we hold that since the profit determined at Rs. 5,81,730/- would be profit from undisclosed sources, there should not be any separate additions made towards excess purchases and difference in sundry creditors balances as the same are to be construed only f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....For that the initiation of proceeding and completion of assessment have been bad in law and void ab initio. 2. For that the completion of appeal by Ld. CIT on ex parte without giving any reasonable opportunity to assessee which is bad in law. 3. For that the addition of entire deposit of Rs. 19,86,370.00 on account of cash deposit to bank is based on guess work and bad in law." 9. The Learned AR argued that the credits in the Axis Bank account had been accepted by the Learned AO to be part of the sale proceeds of the assessee in Asst Year 2008-09. Accordingly, he requested the Bench to kindly set aside this issue to the file of the Learned AO to compare the credits with the turnover disclosed by the assessee in its books and make t....