TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (8) TMI 373
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. The assessee contends that the following substantial questions of law arise in this appeal:- "1) Whether in the present facts and circumstances of the case the order of Ld. ITAT is perverse in estimating the addition for capital investment to the tune of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- for achieving the alleged turnover outside the books of accounts? 2) Whether in the present facts and circumstances of the case the order passed by the Ld. ITAT is perverse in partly holding the addition for capital investment to the tune of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- for achieving the alleged turnover outside the books of accounts wherein the specific details of investment for achieving the turnover is provided itemwise? 3) Whether in the present facts and circumstances of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....05 crores for taxation. The survey report indicated that disclosure had been made to cover up the discrepancies on account of unaccounted purchases and sales as also against unaccounted cash. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had made unaccounted sales worth Rs. 10,00,70,135/- and unaccounted purchases amounting to Rs. 5,05,56,490/- which were discovered during the course of survey. The Assessing Officer took the figure of unaccounted sales amounting to Rs. 10 crores as a base to calculate the unaccounted profits and unexplained investment. The trading results of the assessee as contained in the profit and loss account and balance sheet were utilized. 4. The assessee had for the assessment year in question shown a GP rate of 5.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....account of debtors since the sales are cash sales. Ultimately the balance amount according to the assessee works out to only Rs. 42.63 lacs. 7. Whether these amounts formed part of Rs. 2.45 crores or not is a question of fact. The assessee has not adduced any evidence to establish the same. The manner in which the Assessing Officer has came to the figure of Rs. 2.45 crores cannot be held to be perverse or irrational. His refusal to deduct the amounts as claimed by the assessee from this amount cannot be said to be perverse or irrational either. The Tribunal indeed speculated by reducing the undisclosed investment at Rs. 1.50 crores and the addition of Rs. 55.01 lacs to about Rs. 34.65 lacs. However, the Tribunal speculated in favour of the....