AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (1) TMI 46
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....udicated which decision applies to A.Y.2009-10. Ground No.2 relates to confirmation of addition of Rs. 5,93,880/- on account of closing stock submitted by the assessee to the bank and in the regular books of account and stock register maintained by the assessee. 4. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee, an individual is a re-seller of C.T.V. and electronics goods. For A.Y.2008-09 he filed the return declaring total income of Rs. 1,80,760/-. Later on the case was selected for scrutiny. During the assessment proceedings the AO noted that he was in receipt of an information collected from State Bank of India, Arambagh Branch which he received in pursuance to the notice u/s 133(6) of the Act that the stock valuation of the assessee'....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ance sheet as on 31.03.2008 the receivables sundry debtors was to the tune of Rs. 8,82,954/- and the valuation of the closing stock was Rs. 18,95,120/-. So therefore there is no discrepancy in the closing stock shown by the assesee in its audited balance sheet. This answer of the assessee could not convince the AO so he made the addition of Rs. 5,93,880/-. The ld. CIT(A) called for a remand report from the AO where in he (AO) was directed to ask from the bank as to whether verification of the closing stock as on 31.03.2008 was conducted by the bank. The AO in his remand report notes that the bank did not answer specifically to the queries in this regard but has received a letter on 23.05.2014 wherein it has replied "bank officials verified ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Bank's laid down norms. " and also clarified that the bank can arrange for stock audit by a renowned Chartered Accountant, if necessary. From the same we decipher that the bank has not stated that it has specifically checked/verified the stock physically. Thereafter also the bank on 23.05.2014 also gave the same reply and though the AO has asked questions pin pointedly as to whether the stock has been verified as on 31.03.2008 has not been answered by the bank positively or negatively. So the fact remains that the bank has not replied positively as to the facts that whether they have physically verified the stock as on 31.03.2008 and therefore we cannot saddle the addition on the assessee when the assessee has categorically stated that to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing to ITA No.1125/Kol/2015 we find that ground no.2 is similar to that of ground no.2 in A.Y.2008-09. Following the decision of ours in A.Y.2008-09 we direct the deletion of addition of Rs. 10,12,480/- on account of closing stock difference. 8. Ground No.3 raised by the assessee in A.Y.2009-10 reads as follows :- "3. For that Ld. CIT(A)-6, Kolkata in consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, is not justified in making fresh addition of Rs. 1,11,246.00 on account of bogus purchase without confronting the appellant." 9. The brief facts of the case is that the AO noted that during the assessment proceedings after perusal of the ledger accounts submitted by the assessee that the assessee has made under statement of his purc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3,61,956.00) in respect of Kitchen Appliance Ltd." which the A.O termed "inflated credit balance is not at all related to "the relevant assessment year but earlier to it. " 10. Thereafter the ld. CIT(A) has called for the remand report and which has been reproduced by the ld. CIT(A) in page-6 of the impugned order. Thereafter the assessee's reply for the remand report was also filed which has been noted by the ld. CIT(A) at para 5.2. in para-7 of the impugned order. The ld. CIT(A) notes that during the hearing on 03.07.2015 the written reply to the remand report was filed. Thereafter the ld. CIT(A) has decided the matter wherein he has taken note of the admission made by the assessee in respect to the undisclosed purchases worth Rs. 88,01....