TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (3) TMI 1222
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is a difference between the figures of purchases, sales and closing stock as reflected in the set of final accounts submitted to the bank and those filed alongwith the return of income. The Assessing Officer noted some of the instances in the assessment order i.e. with regard to M/s Glass Palace and reproduced some at page 2 of the assessment order in which there is a difference in opening stock, purchases and sales. The Assessing Officer, therefore, noted that the same would show that loans obtained from the bank in the name of M/s Glass Palace have been actually utilized in that business and the assessee has submitted bill of the purchases of stock to the bank which makes it crystal clear that amount of loan taken was utilized for the same concern and the figures submitted to the banks are original figures of sales, purchases, closing stock and GP and the book results are fabricated. The assessee explained before A.O. that statements submitted to the bank are based on half cooked information/data which was filed only for the purpose of raising loan. Further additional informations were supplied with regard to loans in M/s Modern Tent House and M/s Lamba Bistar Bhandar etc. The A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce in the profit was in the statement submitted to the bank. The Assessing Officer has made addition on account of all the figures without considering the facts that when he has believed trading and Profit & Loss Account filed with the bank as correct as per the figures given thereon, then the profit declared therein should have been accepted by the Assessing Officer. No further calculation should be made for the purpose of making addition against the assessee. We, therefore, set aside and modify the orders of authorities below and direct the Assessing Officer to adopt net profit of Rs. 1,06,980/- as declared in the trading and Profit & Loss Account submitted to the bank instead of Rs. 75,546/- declared in the return of income. We, therefore, confirm the finding of authorities below to that extent and direct the Assessing Officer to adopt the profit of Rs. 1,06,980/- for the purpose of computing income of the assessee. Ground No. 2 of appeal of the assessee is thus, partly allowed. 6. On ground No. 3, assessee challenged the upholding of the addition of Rs. 28,611/- on account of college fee payment and deposit of Rs. 53,200/- in the bank account of Shri Navneet Singh Lamba. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Singh Lamba was a student and has paid fees of Rs. 29,900/- for academic session relating to assessment year under appeal. In his statement recorded during the course of assessment proceedings, Shri Avneet Singh Lamba denied to have any bank account in his name, however, it was intimated by State Bank of India, Paonta Sahib that Shri Avneet Singh Lamba was maintaining bank account in which Rs. 1,51,300/- have been deposited. Since source of the same was not explained, therefore, both the additions were made in the hands of the assessee. 8(i). The ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed this ground of appeal of the assessee following the findings given in the case of Shri Navneet Singh Lamba (supra). 9. After considering rival submissions, we do not find any merit in this ground of appeal of the assessee. It is admitted fact that son of the assessee was dependant upon assessee and no source. There is a deposit of the fees in the Law College in the name of son of the assessee and bank deposit with State Bank of India, Paonta Sahib. The assessee failed to explain source of these deposits therefore, authorities below were justified in making the addition in the hands of the assessee. No evidence....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, this ground of appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. 15. No other point argued or pressed. 16. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. ITA 267/2012 : ( A.Y. 2007-08 ) 17. The ground No. 1 is general and need no adjudication. 18. On ground No. 2, assessee challenged addition of Rs. 14,35,942/- on account of difference in figures of purchases, sales and closing stock as per books of account and those as per figures given to the bank for raising loan. It is stated that this issue is same as have been considered in assessment year 2006-07. However, it is necessary to note one more fact that the Assessing Officer noted the difference in the figures in the case of M/s Glass Palace because as per statement submitted to the bank, the sales was of Rs. 20,11,520/- but the sales as per books of account was Rs. 5,14,859/-. The Assessing Officer, therefore, noted that the GP declared by assessee was of 54%. The Assessing Officer, therefore, applied rate of 54% and made addition of Rs. 14,35,942/- by adding the difference in stock and job work. Ld. Representatives of both the parties submitted that this issue is same as have been considered in assessment year 2006-0....