TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 1373
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... follows :- "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, ld. CIT(A)-31, New Delhi, Camp at Bhopal has erred in - "Deleting the addition of Rs. 45,18,389/- made by A.O. on account of unaccounted sale/receipts which was voluntarily surrendered by the assessee during the course of survey conducted on 24.02.2010" 3. The facts, in nutshell, are that the assessee firm is engaged in the business of Advertising agency. The filed the e-return of income on 29.9.2010 showing total income of Rs. 1,11,60,220/-. Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 7.9.2011 which was duly served upon the assessee. The Assessing Officer observed that a survey u/s 133 of the Act was conducted on 24.2.2010 at the business premises of the assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....accounts on mercantile system of accounting. Further, it is seen that seized work orders relate to period much older than the date of survey. Non-inclusion/delayed inclusion of the huge sales/receipts in account books for a long period makes it clear that the preparation of sale bills/their accounting in the books of accounts immediately after the concluion of survey is only an afterthought. Had the survey been not conducted in the business premises of the assessee firm, the huge sale/receipts of Rs. 45,18,389/- might never have been accounted for. (iv) During the course of survey, excess cash amounting to Rs. 39,22,821/- was found which was unconditionally accepted and offered for taxation. Finding of such huge excess/unaccounted cash i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellant. As per the assessment order the ld. Assessing Officer made an addition of the same amount stating that the assessee has retracted the said surrender. The AR before me has submitted that all the sales bill were prepared on 25.02.2010 immediately after the date of survey to avoid any future confusion to ensure that such papers have been included in the income. This also categorically establishes that the receipts comprised in the seized papers have been duly considered as income by the assessee. Thus, no adverse inference could have been drawn from such fact. The appellant has also submitted various documents in the form of ledger account, copies of bills and vouchers etc. in support of the claim that the receipts to the extent of Rs.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the learned CIT(A) in para 4.3 went wrong in appreciating the facts of the case to hold that the action of the Assessing Officer in making the addition was on the wrong footing and amounts to double taxation. The learned DR also pointed out that the learned CIT(A) was not correct in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of voluntary surrender made by the assessee during the course of survey. Therefore, the impugned order may be set aside by restoring that of the Assessing Officer. 9. Replying to the above, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the partner of the assessee firm prepared bills on 25.2.2010 immediately after the date of survey to avoid any confusion to ensure that such amounts/r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gation that the assessee has retracted from the surrender made during the course of survey proceedings. This fact has not been controverted by the learned DR that the assessee submitted all the sale bills which were prepared on very next date of survey i.e. 25.2.2010 to ensure that the impugned amount should be included in the trading results/income of the assessee. When the impugned amount which was picked up by the Assessing Officer for making the addition, has been shown as receipt in the accounts of the assessee and such receipts of Rs. 45,18,389/- were actually included in the total turnover shown by the assessee in the books of accounts and the same were also offered to tax then in our opinion the Assessing Officer was not justified i....