TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 1679
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... while Ground No. 5 raised by the assessee has not been pressed by the ld. Counsel for the assessee at the time of hearing before us. 3. The main issue involved in Grounds No. 2 & 3 relates to the addition of Rs. 27,81,670/- made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) on account of discrepancy found in stock during the course of survey. 4. The assessee in the present case is an individual, who is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of Mustard Oil, Refined Oil, Til Oil and Dalda through two Oil Mills run under the name and style of Bhabani Oil Mill and Jai Bhabani Oil Mill. A survey under section 133A was carried out in the business premises of the assessee on 14.09.2007. Subsequent to the surve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the basis of reconciliation statement was held to be an after-thought by the ld. CIT(Appeals) and keeping in view that the assessee in his statement recorded during the course of survey had admitted the discrepancy in stock, he confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of shortage of stock as found during the course of survey. 6. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the material available on record. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the relevant observations recorded by the ld. CIT(Appeals) in paragraph no. 6 of the impugned order to point out that the working filed by the assessee for the period from 01.09.2007 to 14.09.2007 reconciling the difference in the stock....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing the said period, the movement of stock should have been taken into consideration by him. In this regard, it is also observed that although such working was stated to be filed by the assessee showing the relevant transactions for the period 01.09.2007 to 14.09.2007 before the ld. CIT(Appeals), there is no such specific mention in the order of the Assessing Officer about the said working having been filed by the assessee. Although the ld. CIT(Appeals) has brushed aside the said working by treating the same as an after-thought, we are of the view that the said working prepared and furnished by the assessee to reconcile the difference in stock as taken by the Assessing Officer of different dates, i.e. 01.09.2007 and 14.09.2007 is relevant a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....used the relevant material available on record. As rightly submitted by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, both the entries in question dated 18.03.2007 and 20.03.2007 are falling in the financial year 2006-07 relevant to the assessment year 2007-08 and, therefore, the amount reflected therein aggregating to Rs. 3,00,000/- cannot be added to the total income of the assessee for the year under consideration, i.e. A.Y. 2008-09. Ld. D.R. has not been able to raise any contention to dispute this position. We, therefore, delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) on this issue holding that both the entries found recorded in the diary being dated 18.03.2007 and 20.03.2007, the addition for the same coul....