TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (9) TMI 1170
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... : 2. Ground of Appeal No.1 by the Revenue and ground of appeal No.2 of the cross objection by the assessee relate to the same issue and read as under : Ground By Revenue : "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the CIT(A) erred in allowing the depreciation claim of Rs. 86,10,000/- for the A.Y. 2003-04 of the assessee on wind mill" Cross Objection No.2 by the assessee : "2. The learned CIT(Appeals) erred in facts and circumstances of the case and in law in disallowing the claim of depreciation @ 80% on the total cost of the windmill by treating part of the cost as being incurred for civil works and thereby allowing depreciation @ 10% only on such costs. It be held that the entire costs of windmill, erection, foundation, infrastructure, installation etc are to be allowed depreciation @ 80% as they form a integral part of windmill by applying the functional tests." 2.1 Facts of the case in brief, are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading in Pan Masala, Gutkha, trading in shares and also engaged in the business of construction and generation of power etc. During the course of assessment proceedi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roduced. 4. Based on the arguments advanced by the assessee, and following his decision in the case of Chhapalkar Brothers for A.Y. 2008-09, the CIT(A) held that the said decision will be applicable to the case of the assessee. He held that in the case of Chhalpalhar Brothers he has determined the various components which go on to make up the case of the windmill, the details of which are as under : Sr.No. Particulars 1. Cost of wind turbine generator 2.a) Cost of component & accessory (copper wound with accessories) b) Cost of component for generation of electricity supply of rotor blades c) Electrical items, components of RE device 3. Cost of tubular tower 4. Cost of work including foundation work 5. Labour related cost a) Installation of windmill b) Installation of electrical line for power transmission and meter c) Final testing and commissioning 6. Reimbursement of power evacuation facility and creation of infrastructure 7. Miscellaneous a) Processing charges b) Interest on loan capitalized upto 17-01-2008 c) Professional fees d) Registration fees e) Substation charge....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under : "5. In this background, we have considered the rival submissions. It was a convergence of opinion between the assessee and the learned CIT(DR) that so far as the cost of foundation of Windmill is concerned, the same is liable to be considered as an integral part of the cost of Windmill having regard to the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Aminity Developers & Builders vide ITA no. 1505/PN/2011 dated 12.12.2012 and also in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Cooper Foundary Pvt. Ltd. vide Income Tax Appeal No. 1326 of 2010 dated 14.06.2011. The Tribunal in the case of Aminity Developers & Builders (supra) by applying the 'functional test' held that the cost incurred on the foundation of the Windmill is to be considered as an integral part of the cost of Windmill erection and is thus eligible for the depreciation @ 80%, prescribed for Windmill. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Cooper Foundary Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has also upheld the proposition that cement, concrete foundation is to be included in the cost of Windmill, while granting depreciation @ 80% on the Windmill. Therefore, on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e light of the direction of the Tribunal. The ground raised by the revenue as well as the ground raised by the assessee in the CO are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 8. Identical grounds have been taken by the Revenue in all the other appeals. The assessee has also taken similar ground in all the Cos (Ground No.2) and ground of appeal No.3 in ITA No.1986/PN/2012. Following our reasonings given in the preceding paras, the ground by the Revenue as well as by the assessee in the appeal and COs on the issue of depreciation on windmill is restored to the file of the AO for recomputing depreciation in the light of the order of the Tribunal. These grounds are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 9. Ground of CO No.1 by the assessee reads as under "1) The learned CIT( Appeals) erred in facts and circumstances of the case and in law in holding that all items of addition have to be separately considered before it can be held that a particular issue falls within the scope of section 153A or not. It be held that the impugned additions made are beyond the scope and provisions of Section 153 A as they are not based on any seized / incriminating material foun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as argued that the land owner in question was neither summoned during the assessment proceedings nor the statement recorded of the land owner was brought to the notice of the assessee. It was contended that the assessee has not paid anything over and above the declared sale price. It was submitted that one land owner by name Shri Pandurang D. Gore had confirmed in his statement that he has received Rs. 1 lakh in cash from the assessee in respect of land purchased from him and 10 other co-owners for a total consideration of Rs. 1,49,623/-. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 26 ITR 775 it was submitted that the addition which was made on the basis of conjectures and surmises should be deleted. 13. Based on the arguments advanced by the assessee the Ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition by observing as under : "59. I have considered the submissions of the appellant with reference to the facts on record. It is observed that in the case of the appellant, the landlords from whom the land was purchased in the previous years relevant to assessment years 2003-04 to 2007-08 and 2009-10 were not pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the hands of the appellant. The assessing officer has not specified the relevant assessment year in respect of which one seller had confirmed that he had received a sum over and above the documented price in the assessment orders for the years in which this addition is made. Hence, he is directed to find out the relevant assessment year for which the statement was made and retain the addition to that extent in the concerned assessment year. Consequently, the appellant gets relief in five assessment years and partial relief in one assessment year." 13.1 Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A) the revenue is in appeal before us. 14. The Ld. Departmental Representative heavily relied on the order of the Assessing Officer. 15. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee on the other hand referring to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT Vs. Ghodawat International Pvt. Ltd. vide ITA Nos. 2147 to 2150/PN/2012 order dated 31-12-2012 for A.Yrs. 2005-06 to 2009-10 submitted that under identical facts and circumstances the addition made on account of unaccounted investment in land, which was deleted by the CIT(A), has been upheld by the Tribunal and the ground raised by the revenu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Sixteen land owners in the Trust cases, one land owner in the case of Shri Sanjay Ghodawat, individual and Ghodawat Industries India Pvt. Ltd. and three land owners in the case of Ghodawat Foods Industry Pvt. Ltd. has stated that they had received monies over and above the documented price. The Assessing Officer concluded that the assessee has also paid an equal amount of unaccounted cash, over and above the price shown as land purchased in the books of account, therefore made the addition in every case of land purchase. Though in the real estate transactions there is a role of on money. But it could not be said that each of every real estate transaction involved cash component which is not part of documentation price for the purpose of income tax. One cannot make addition merely on assumption that because other individuals or persons have made payment of earned money in real estate purchases, another person belonging to the same group would have also made a similar payment of on money to acquire real estate in his or her own name. There is no presumption in law that there has to be an unaccounted transaction when there is a dealing in real estate. It is pertinent to mention that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in respect of unaccounted sale of Gutkha for A.Y. 2003-04." (Rs.20,84,85,103/- each for A.Y. 2004-05 to 2007-08, Rs. 20,85,23,425/- for A.Y. 2008-09 and Rs. 39,40,36,751/- for A.Y. 2009-10) 17.1 As mentioned earlier, the assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading in Pan Masala, Gutkha, trading in shares and also engaged in the business of construction and generation of power etc. The original return of income for the impugned year was filed on 29-10-2003 declaring total income of Rs. 10,28,780/- and agricultural income of Rs. 4,06,52,243/-. A search and seizure operation u/s.132 /133A of the Act was carried out on 04-02-2009. In response to the notice u/s.153A(1) the assessee requested the Assessing Officer to treat the return filed earlier as return filed in response to the above notice. 17.2 During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer noted that a search and seizure action u/s.132 was also carried out at the factory premises of Ghodawat Industries India Pvt. Ltd. (in short 'GIIPL') at Village Mankapur District Belgaum, Karnataka. GIIPL is engaged in manufacturing of Gutkha & pan masala under various brand names ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he factory premises. He noted that the records found during the course of search reveal that the Central Excise Authorities have charged the excise duty on production of Gutkha and Pan masala on the basis of production capacity of power machines installed in the factory premises. The search party in the course of search action followed the method adopted by the Excise department for levy of Excise duty on production. The working of production capacity per machine for the month of October 2007 was prepared and quantified by the search party which resulted into suppression of production and sale to the tune of Rs. 12,71,43,500/- between the production shown in the books and the production worked out on the basis of machine capacity. 17.5 The Assessing Officer after analysing the statement recorded u/s.132(4) came to the conclusion that Shri Sanjay Ghodawat was also not able to give a rebuttal as to why the production method adopted by Excise department should not be adopted and books of accounts should not be rejected u/s.145 of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer also referred to the statement of some of the employees/labourers working on the production machine which were r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the same and noted that Shree Ambika Enterprises has made substantial sales to its 25 distributors spread over in the areas of Thane, Mumbai and Vashi in cash which are outside books during F.Y. 2006-07 to 2008-09 and the cash received has admittedly been passed on to Shri Sanjay Ghodawat through one Mr. Mahesh, one of the employees of GIIPL, who collected cash in Mumbai on day-to-day basis. After analysing the various documents seized by the sales tax department, the statement recorded during the course of survey of Shri Dharmesh Patel, the Assessing Officer determined the unaccounted sale of GIIPL through M/s. Shree Ambika Enterprise at Rs. 32,99,250/- for a period of 4 months of the F.Y. 2006-07. Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali reported in 90 ITR 271, the AO determined the unaccounted sales for F.Y. 2006-07 at Rs. 98,97,750/-. Similarly, he determined the unaccounted sales for F.Y. 2007-08 at Rs. 32,04,31,758/- and for F.Y. 2008-09 at Rs. 65,85,27,850/-. 17.9 Similarly, in the case of M/s. Shaik Traders, Satara, Proprietor Mr. Kutubuddin Shaikh, the Assessing Officer noted that the survey was conducted at his busi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the suppressed sale of gutkha and pan masala comes to Rs. 66 lakhs for a period of 2 months of the F.Y. 2008-09. Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali reported in 90 ITR 271 the Assessing Officer estimated the suppressed sales for F.Y. 2007-08 at Rs. 3,96,00,000/-. 17.11 Since the books of account does not give a true and correct picture of the affairs of the assessee and the assessee was indulging in large scale sale outside books of account, the AO rejected the books of account. On the basis of his various analysis, the Assessing Officer determined the suppressed sales at Rs. 265,97,33,413/- during the period covered in the search and determined the profit for different years by observing as under : "9.6 Thus, the total suppressed sales comes to Rs. 265,97,33,413/- during the period covered in the search as tabulated below. The profits attributable to the suppressed sales during the various years of the search period from the F.Yrs. 2002-03 to 2008-09 is worked out by adopting GP ratio. The year-wise bifurcation of suppressed sales is as under : Sr. No Financial Year Estimated Suppressed sales 1 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2006-07 910386077 436220602 474165475 481846062 52.92 2007-08 1254020055 614197774 614197774 711442148 56.73 Average Gross Profit Ratio 54.87 9.9 It can be seen from the above that gross profit ratio after excluding the excise duty ranges between 52.92% to 56.73% for the three financial years mentioned above. Adopting the average, GP ratio for all the three years comes to 54.87%. Applying the G P ratio worked out @54.87, the total taxable undisclosed profits is determined as under. It is to mention here that for the assessment year 2007-08 though the unrecorded sale is, on the basis of proof found during the search at Rs. 4,17,26,141 on which profit at the rate of 54.87 comes to Rs. 2,28,95,133, for the assessment the unrecorded income is taken at Rs. 20,84,85,103/-. The year wise profit taxable in the hands of the assessee is worked out as under by adopting GP ratio at 54.87%: Thus for the impugned assessment year the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 20,84,85,103/- being profit on unaccounted sale of Gutkha and Pan masala. Sr. No Financial Year Suppressed Sales Profit @ 54.87% 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see in connection with book stock and physical stock, consumption of raw material etc. No incriminating documents were found and seized with regard to unaccounted purchase bills or sales bill in the factory or office premises. 18.1 It was submitted that the accounts of the assessee are audited u/s.44AB and quantitative details of raw materials purchased and consumed and its closing stock is given in the prescribed form. It was submitted that in absence of proper records, the above details could not have been given. The assessee submitted that difference in book stock as per the records maintained at the head office and physical stock at factory premises was never brought out during search or assessment proceedings. The assessee submitted that the Excise duty during A.Y. 2009-10 was on advalorem basis and actual dispatches. From 01-07-2008 the Excise duty was sought to be levied on the number of operational packing machines used vide Notification No.42/2008-Central excise-dt. 01-07-2008. It was submitted that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court granting the assessee interim stay on levy of Excise duty on operational packing machines and directing the asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Shri Dharmesh Patel it was stated that some of the papers that he was confronted with did not belong to him. 18.6 So far as the transactions with M/s. Shaikh Traders of Satara is concerned, it was submitted that the proprietor of the said firm was cross examined wherein he has denied of having purchased any goods in cash from the assessee. It was submitted by the proprietor of the above firm that goods manufactured by the assessee were purchased from other parties in cash which were accounted for in the books of account and copies of such purchase bills were submitted during the statement. The proprietor had mentioned that he had the bills in respect of purchases from the assessee and the payments were made by cheque only. The assessee further pointed out that the unrecorded turnover in the statement recorded was not mentioned at Rs. 50 lakhs for 3 months but Rs. 50 lakhs for the period 01-04-2008 to 03-02-2009. 18.7 As regards the sales to M/s Siddheshwar Agencies of Solapur is concerned, it was submitted in the statement recorded it was stated by the above party that the purchases for the unrecorded sales were made in cash from the local market. As far as purchases from the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vijay Anand Fabrics (P) Ltd vs. ACIT reported in 45 DTR 222. 19. It was submitted that since there was no question of determining any suppressed sale there was also no need to determine the profit thereon of Rs. 20,84,85,103/- which was made uniformly for Financial years 2002-03 to 2006-07. Without prejudice to the above it was submitted that though for F.Y. 2006-07 suppressed sales was estimated at Rs. 4,17,26,141/- the profit on such sales was estimated at Rs. 20,84,85,103/- which is ridiculous. The assessee further challenged the rejection of books of account on the ground that no defects were pointed out in the books of account which were audited. Auditors have not pointed out any mistake therein. It was argued that before rejection of the books of account, the AO should have recorded a clear finding that correct profits cannot be deduced from the method of accounting adopted. For the above proposition, the assessee also relied on the following decisions : 1. DCIT is Mewar Textiles Mills Ltd (MP) 64 TTJ 502. 2. CIT vs Smt Poonam Rani 326 ITR 223 (DEL) (2010) 3. Raghubar mandal Harihar Mandal vs. Stat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mination per pouch. vii) The dealers / agents discussed in the assessment order had categorically admitted of having purchased unaccounted goods from the appellant and also had explained how the cash was channelized to reach the appellant. Copies of statement recorded of these agents/dealers were made available to the appellant and opportunity of cross-examination was afforded to the appellant." 21. Based on the arguments advanced by the assessee and after considering the remand report of the Assessing Officer the Ld.CIT(A) sustained an amount of Rs. 1,27,98,183/- for A.Y. 2009-10 and deleted the addition made by the AO for different years by observing as under : "94. I have carefully perused the submissions of the appellant, the facts on records and also the remand report. I have held in paragraph 35 of this order that in non-abated cases, the assessing officer has the jurisdiction to make an assessment on all issues except the concluded issue. Concluded issues can be reassessed only on the basis of new evidences or documents or income or assets found during the course of search, which can be held to be incriminating in nature. However, there cannot be a chang....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ne through the records of the case and I find that no incriminating document /material whatsoever has been found in respect of production or sales of pan masala or gutkha or other allied products in the case of the appellant for any of these years during the course of search and seizure. It is a fact that no incriminating document whatsoever was found in respect of the concluded items of production and sales of pan masala and gutkha for earlier assessment years 2003-04 to 2006-07. 96. I have perused the records submitted during the appellate proceedings and the originals lying with the appellant. I find that in respect of assessment year 2006-07 a notice under section 142(1) dated 05/05/2008 along with a detailed questionnaire was sent to the appellant. Questions 18 and 19 specifically deal with turnover, gross profit and expenses incurred in respect of trading and profit and loss account. Similarly, these aspects were looked into vide questions no. 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 for assessment year 2005-06. In assessment year 2004-05, similar details were called for vide a questionnaire sent with the notice under section 142(1) dated 11/07/2006. The relevant questions are at 2(vii....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e observation of the assessing officer that the basic documents regarding input of raw material is not maintained at the factory premises is however, correct. It is also a fact that excise records are maintained as per the excise rules and they are in respect of finished goods which have moved out of the factory premises. But these factors are not substantial enough to state that the excise records are incorrect, false and unreliable in the absence of any cogent evidence which would belie a suspicion that there was unaccounted purchase of raw material, which was consumed and the resultant production was suppressed. 98. In this context, the assessing officer himself states that the conclusions drawn for the financial years 2006-07 to 2008-09 are being extrapolated for the financial years 2002-03 to 2005- 06 (please see paragraph 9.5 on page 38 for AY 2003-04). In fact, the assessing officer has rejected the books of account for all these assessment years under section 145 of the Income-tax Act on the ground that no primary or basic records are maintained at the factory premises. Thus, absence of records indicating consumption of raw material and production of finished goods....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessing officer in making the additions. The additions in these three years are based on the statement given by Shri Dharmesh Patel, Proprietor of M/s Shree Ambika Enterprises, Mumbai, Shri Kutubuddhin R Shaikh, Proprietor of M/s Shaikh Traders, Satara and Udhav S Kharge, HUF represented by the Karta, Shri U S Kharge. A survey action under section 133A was carried out at M/s Shree Ambika Enterprises, Prop. Shri Dharmesh Patel on 05/02/2009 when it was found that the Sale-tax department had already conducted a survey operation at the business premises of Shri Dharmesh Patel. It was found that all the books of accounts including the hard disk were taken away by the Saletax department. Accordingly the Dy. Commissioner of Sale-tax was requisitioned to provide the copies of seized documents. It seems from the assessment order that the copies requisitioned for, were sent by the Sales-tax department to the Investigation wing. These papers apparently contained details of sales of gutkha and pan masala by Shri Dharmesh Patel to various distributors for the financial years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008- 09. Statement of Shri Dharmesh Patel was recorded on oath under section 131 on 02/04/200....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 101. During the course of assessment proceedings, the appellant requested the assessing officer to grant them an opportunity to cross examine Shir Kharge, Shri Dharmesh Patel and Shri Shaikh as also the various employees of these persons. Consequent to the request, cross examination of the three persons named above was held on 24/12/2010. Vide letter dated 27/12/2010, the appellant stated that the copies of documents found and seized at the premises of these three persons should also be supplied to them in order to enable them a chance of reconciliation in respect of the contents of those documents. However, those documents were not made available to the appellant. In fact, the assessing officer vide letter No. KOP/DCIT(C)/Cir/Ser.Asstt./Ghodawat/2010-11/745 dated 06/12/2010 had requested the ADIT(Inv), Kolhapur that the statements which were recorded and reported was not made available to the assessing officer. Therefore, it is apparent that the assessing officer did not ask for the relevant books, registers etc. on the basis of which statements of these three persons were taken. 102. During the course of this appellate proceeding also I had requested the assessing offi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... judicial decisions that in the absence of rebuttal or retraction the earlier stated facts in most of the cases, may be conclusive and can be acted upon. Specific provisions of the Income-tax Act as contained under sections 132(4), 133A(5), etc., provide that statements recorded in the income-tax proceedings have evidentiary value. In the instant case the statements made by third parties was neither under 132(4) or under section 133A(5). Therefore, it can be stated that the evidentiary value of the statements relied upon in assessment was dubious to a certain extent. Even though the statements would, for argument sake, have evidentiary value, yet it is not a conclusive proof of the financial or commercial affairs of the appellant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avadh Kishore Das v. Ram Gopal AIR 1979 SC 861 has held that evidentiary admissions are not conclusive proof of the facts admitted and may be explained or shown to be wrong. They do however, raise an estoppel and shift the burden of proof on to the person making them. The Supreme Courtfurther held that they are not an efficacious proof of the facts admitted, if shown or explained to be wrong. 107. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....idered to be more effective for the simple reason that in the eyes of law they carry more value in view of the specific provisions of the Indian Penal Code as contained in sections 181, 191 & 193 which provide for prosecution in case of false statements given on oath. Affidavit, a solemn and voluntary declaration or statement of fact in writing, relating to matters in question and sworn or affirmed and signed by the deponent before a person or officer duly authorized to administer such an oath or affirmation, shows the circumstances under which admission was made and the grounds for which the admission is incorrect. Necessary supporting evidences to support the correct facts need to be filed. When by a sworn statement or affidavit facts admitted, in an earlier statement which was recorded on oath, are retracted the Assessing Officer must' examine the maker carefully. On furnishing of an affidavit, the Assessing Officer is entitled to examine the witness or cross examine the deponent. If the Assessing Officer fails to cross-examine the deponent the statement made in the affidavit becomes unchallengeable. On this point, useful reference can be made to the decision of the Supreme ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed principle of evidence that the approach of a court is first to marshal evidence against the accused excluding confession altogether and see whether the accused can be held guilty. Therefore the Assessing Officer ought not have placed undue importance on the admission which was bereft of any documentary evidence found during the course of search. Oral evidence only supplements documentary evidence, cannot supplant the same. (iv) It is also a well-accepted principle that an admission is not conclusive evidence as to the truth of the matter stated therein. It is only a piece of evidence, the relevancy of which is required to be judged basing on the material evidence and circumstances in which it is made. (v) A mere confessional statement without there being any documentary proof shall not be used as evidence against the appellant. In the following case before the Court, a statement of managing director was recorded in course of search wherein he admitted undisclosed income but later retracted from the said statement and accordingly the court held that without documentary proof, a statement alone cannot be utilized against the appellant. CIT v. Shri Ramdas Motor Tr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of investigation. This gave the authorities sufficient time to collect corroborative evidence which they have failed to do as explained in the preceding paras. That a retraction can be made before filing the return is accepted as principle in the case of R.P. Monga v. Dy. CIT [2003] 87ITD 287 (Delhi) (TM). 113. Statement given by a person makes out a prima facie case against the assessee. But this is not always irrefutable. If such a statement is always an unimpeachable evidence, then there will be no. need for any further enquiries if the Department has to make out a case of undisclosed income against the assessee. Therefore, the law provides that the statements even though in possession of primary evidentiary value can be rebutted if more convincing evidences are furnished by the assessee. It is in this context that the assessees requested the, Assessing Officer to afford an opportunity to cross-examine Shri Dharmesh Patel, Shri Shaikh and Shri Kharge. All of them made themselves available for facilitating the cross-examination by the assessees. All these persons, who had initially deposed against the assessee, negated the statement made by them during the course of su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....indicating suppression of sales to make the aforesaid additions. Apart from these, the assessing officer did nothing to prove that retraction by Shri Dharmesh Patel was incorrect. Shri Patel has (i) denied any unaccounted transaction with the company (ii) stated that he retracted from earlier statement immediately upon reaching Mumbai because he had not read the statement and because the contents of the statement were not made known to him and he was not allowed to go through the contents of the statement. Interestingly, the Department did not do anything to show that the contents of the affidavit were untrue or malicious. Even during the course of cross examination, the retraction was further crystallized in the form of denial of every transaction explained in the first statement. Even the findings of the Sales-tax department contradict the admission of sales outside books in the financial years 2006-07 and 2007-08. 116. The assessing officer has computed the suppressed sales and gross profit in the following manner - 117. In the financial year 2006-07 the material seized by the Salestax department apparently indicated that there was a suppressed sales of Rs. 32,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a figure of Rs. 265,97,33,413/- and this figure was apportioned amongst various assessment years as indicated above. To these figures of suppressed sales, a gross profit ratio of 54.87% was applied. The assessing officer observed that the actual gross profit ratio for financial years 2005-06 to 2007-08 ranged between 7.93% to 7.75%. After excluding the excise duty component in respect of these three years, the average gross profit ratio was taken at 54.87%. This was applied to the suppressed sales of every year to arrive at profit of Rs. 20,84,85,103/- for financial years 2002-03 to 2006-07, Rs. 20,85,23,425/- for financial year 2007-08 and Rs. 39,40,36,751/- for the financial year 2008-09. 118. The appellant has also pointed out that some of the conclusions recorded in assessment order is incorrect - (a) Estimated unaccounted sales have been made for post search period as well. (b) Shri Shaikh has mentioned that unrecorded sales is for the period 01/04/2008 to 03/02/2009, but the assessing officer has stated that period of unaccounted turnover is for three months only. (c) Estimations are pure presumptions and not based on any evidences. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3 01/02/2008 4 12/02/2008 5 13/02/2008 6 14/02/2008 7 16/02/2008 8 21/02/2008 9 22/02/2008 10 23/02/2008 Lagaan gutkha 1 24/11/2007 2 27/11/2007 3 28/11/2007 4 29/11/2007 5 30/11/2007 6 01/12/2007 7 02/12/2007 8 03/12/2007 9 04/12/2007 10 12/01/2008 11 14/01/2008 12 15/01/2008 13 23/01/2008 14 01/02/2008 15 12/02/2008 16 13/02/2008 17 14/02/2008 18 15/02/2008 19 16/02/2008 20 21/02/2008 21 22/02/2008 22 23/02/2008 S.G. Gutkha 1 24/11/2007 2 28/11/2007 3 29/11/2007 4 30/11/2007 5 01/12/2008 6 02/12/2008 7 03/12/2008 8 04/12/2008 9 12/01/2008 10 14/01/2008 11 15/01/2008 12 23/01/2008 13 01/02/2008 14 12/02/2008 15 13/02/2008 16 14/02/2008 17 15/02/2008 18 16/02/2008 19 21/02/2008 20 22/02/2008 21 23/02/2008 Chak De production in 2009-10 UP No.1 1 23/11/2007 Star Premium 1 24/11/2007 2 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he figures of production or consumption of raw material. It is worthwhile noting that neither the Excise department nor the Sales-tax department have doubted the statements of production and clearances given by the appellant till date. Under these circumstances, it is not possible to accept the theory that merely because the machines were capable of packaging more number of pouches per minute, they had indeed packed more number of pouches during these financial years. 120. The assessing officer, in pages 16 to 19 of the assessment order (paragraph 8(B) has computed the consumption of lamination for different brands and summarized his finding in a table given on page 19 of the assessment order. The assessing officer has not provided the basis for working the average weight of lamination used for every pouch produced by the appellant during the financial year 2006-07. In the absence of a scientific method of determining the consumption of lamination in production per pouch, it is not possible to concur with the values of weight of the pouches adopted by the assessing officer to infer that lamination per pouch was consumed in the range of 0.326 to 0.344 gms. The entire exerci....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... anything on record to suggest that the OMS purchases of Shri Dharmesh Patel belonged to third parties. Therefore, in accordance with the discussion on retracted statement (supra), I hold that gross profit of 54.87% should be applied on the turnover of Rs. 2,33,24,556/- to arrive at the suppressed production of the appellant for the assessment year 2009-10 only. This is for the reason that the. Sales-tax department which had made the original seizure and who is in custody of all the books, documents, registers and hard disk of the appellant have not found any incriminating material in respect of financial years 2006- 07 and 2007-08. Therefore, the appellant gets full relief in respect of financial years 2006-07 and 2007-08 and partial relief for financial year 2008-09 in respect of turnover pertaining to Shri Dharmesh Patel. 122. In financial years 2007-08 and 2008-09 the assessing officer has also made an addition of Rs. 2 crores on account of transactions with one Shri Kutubuddhin R Shaikh of Shaikh Traders, Satara. During the. course of survey conducted on Shaikh Traders on 04/02/2009, the deponent made a confessional statement that he had transacted in goods of the app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pellant then, he would purchase these products from one Shri Datta who would give the products along with the bill of one Sairaj Trading Company, Sangameshwar. He stated that it was only in respect of such purchases made from the market through Shri Datta that cash payments were made by him. He also retracted from his earlier statement of Shri Datta was an employee of the appellant. He retracted from his earlier statement implicating the appellant in accepting cash as the mode of payment for any purchase or sales. During his cross-cross-examination, Shri Shaikh accepted that he had given a statement that he had made a purchase of Rs. 24,82,196/- in cash. He further stated that if Shri Datta was an employee of the appellant then, he would not have given the product of Ghodawat Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd. in cash to him. The deponent did not agree to the question posed in reference to the statement given by him during the course of cross-examination that Shri Datta was not employee of the appellant, is incorrect. So, apart from the examination by the Investigation Wing, there is a clear-cut statement of the deponent retracting from his earlier statement that he had made cash purchas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....statement that the appellant had made any unaccounted sales through Shri Udhav Kharge. Hence, the additions of Rs. 3.76 crores made for both the years are deleted." 21.1 Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A) the Revenue is in appeal before us. 22. The Ld. Departmental Representative strongly challenged the order of the CIT(A). She submitted that since the assessee was not maintaining the primary documents in respect of production of gutkha at the factory premises, the search party, based on excise records for production capacity of machines worked out the quantum of production and suppressed sale of gutkha. Even the Managing Director of the company Shri Sanjay Ghodawat had admitted in his statement recorded during the course of search that relevant records of purchase of raw materials with the onward details of such materials at factory premises and details of finished and semi finished products of gutkha and pan masala and outward details of such finished products from factory premises are neither maintained nor those were found during the course of search. She submitted that the records found during the search revealed that the central excise authorities have charged the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....proceeded with the report of the search party. He submitted that the assessee is not at all aware as to how the finding of suppression of sales and purchases outside books is arrived at. He submitted that during the course of search the stock of raw material and finished goods found during the course of search tallied with the stock records. Further, during the course of search no documents/evidences were found from the premises of the assessee to show that the assessee, infact, had made sales or purchases outside books of accounts. Even the CIT(A) also has verified the seized records as stated in his order in para 97 (page 93) and has held that observations of the Assessing Officer on this issue is misleading and does not state the fact. He submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings the assessee had submitted all the details like month-wise production, consumption of raw material, machines being put to use on the basis of the data being submitted to the excise department etc. The assessee has also submitted the details of the electricity units consumed along with the connected load and power of the respective machines. The department has also carried out the survey....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hes produced are more, it cannot be assumed that they were sold by filling finished material in it as there is no evidence of unaccounted purchases. Referring to the assessment order for A.Y. 2009-10, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew the attention of the Bench to para 12.3 of the assessment order where the Assessing Officer has mentioned "it is mentioned that no evidence relating to corresponding unaccounted purchases was found and seized in the course of search action". This exercise is worked out only for F.Y. 2006-07 and used as a basis for making additions for all the years. He submitted that the production as per excise records which are part of the seized documents were verified with the books of accounts maintained and no discrepancies were found. 23.2 So far as the statement of the C&F agents are concerned, he submitted that the statement of Shri Dharmesh Patel, Proprietor of M/s. Ambika Enterprises, Mumbai was recorded by the Investigation wing during the search proceedings on 02-04- 2009. In this case, a search was conducted by the sales tax department in his premises on 20-01-2009 and the survey conducted by the Income-tax department was on 05-02-2009. He submitt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve purchased goods of Rs. 50 lakhs of Ghodawat Industries Pvt. Ltd. in cash during the period 01-04-2008 to 04-02-2009. However, the said person was cross examined during the course of assessment proceedings and during such cross examination Shri Kutubuddin R. Sheik denied to have purchased any goods in cash from GIIPL. He had submitted that goods manufactured by GIIPL were purchased from other parties in cash. However, the same are duly accounted for in the books of account and copies of such purchase bills were submitted during the cross examination. So far as purchases from GIIPL are concerned he has produced the bills and the payments were made by cheque only. 23.5 As regards the statement of Shri Udhav S. Kharge, Proprietor of M/s. Siddeswar Agencies, Solapur is concerned, he submitted that during the course of survey on 14-02-2009 it was found that sale of Star, Chakde gutkha and pan masala to the tune of Rs. 66,51,159/- was not recorded in the books of accounts for which the firm had offered gross profit of 3.66% of the undisclosed sale and investment in unaccounted business of Rs. 7.50 lakhs as undisclosed income. He submitted that the said party in his statement recorde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de the Maharashtra state where as the Assessing Officer took the unaccounted sale from the purchases from Godhwat Industries (within the Maharashtra State). Therefore when the Sales Tax Department who carried out the search and seizure operation and seized the record in question has come to the conclusion that the unaccounted sale is from the purchase from outside state then the view of the Assessing Officer that the unaccounted sale is from the purchases made within the state is not sustainable." 23.8 He submitted that since the ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case cited (Supra) has deleted the addition in the hands of Shri Dharmesh Patel, therefore, the basis of suppressed production in the case of the assessee is not justified. He accordingly submitted that no addition on account of unaccounted sale of Gutkha is warranted and therefore all the appeals filed by the Revenue on this issue have to be dismissed and the addition sustained by the CIT(A) during A.Y. 2009-10 should be deleted and the ground raised by the assessee on this issue should be allowed. 24. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2008-09 which are duly verified by the excise department and found to be correct were seized and are part of the seized records. There was no variation between the stock found physically and stock as per books of accounts. The assessee in the audit report has given full quantitative details of stock of raw materials and finished goods as per records maintained by it and which were duly verified by the excise authorities from time to time and no discrepancies were found. Neither any incriminating document was seized during the course of search regarding such variation in the production and sales nor any addition has been made either by excise authority or sales tax department in the case of the assessee. No unaccounted stock was found and seized. No unaccounted purchase bill or sale bill either in the factory premises or in the office premises was found or seized during the course of search. Further, the submission of the assessee that excise duty during A.Y. 2009-10 was on Advalorem basis and on actual despatches and from 01-07-2008 the excise duty was sought to be levied on the number of operational packing machines used and the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 11- 07-2008 had ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Industries for sale of Gutkha and Pan Masala. The Assessing Officer made the estimated GP addition by working out the unaccounted sale whereas in case of C & F Agent the income is only the commission as agreed between the parties and not any profit margin from purchase and sale because the purchase is made by the traders and dealers and the sale is made by the manufacturer. The role of C & F Agent is limited to the marketing sale promotion and recovery of payment from the traders and dealers depending upon the terms and conditions agreed upon between the parties. Therefore there cannot be any purchase and sale by the C & F Agent but it facilitates the purchase and sale between the Trader/Dealer and the manufacturer. Even otherwise an agent acts being a representative of the principle therefore there cannot be any purchase and sale in the name of the agent. The Assessing Officer adopted the GP rate admitted by the Assessee on its business of Trade which is not permitted to be adopted for the income being commission of C & F Agent. Though the assessee denied that he is C & F Agent of M/s Godhwat Industries, however the Assessing Officer proceeded on the basis that assessee is C & F ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... If you fail to comply with this show cause noticed, following actions under MVAT Act-2002 will be initiated without any further intimation to you. 1) Penalty u/s 29 empowers penal action. 2) Sub Section (5) of section 23 of the said act provides for passing of best judgment assessment order. 3) Action u/s 75 & u/s 76 MVAT Act-2002 provides for criminal prosecution prescribed under code of criminal procedure 1973 (20 of 1974) 4) Interest u/s 30 will be levied as per provision of law. Date Place Thane (A.M.Patil) Dy. Commissioner of Sales Tax, (Investigation), Thane. 10. It is clear that the Sale Tax Department took the unaccounted sale for 10 months w.e.f. 01.04.2008 till the date of search i.e. 20.01.2009 which is obvious because it could be at the best up to the date of search. But when the Assessing Officer attempted to make addition of the unaccounted sale for the assessment year 2008-09 the same is not contemporaneous to the period which the addition is made by the Sales Tax Department on the basis of same seized material. Further it is not unsustainable as to how only 10 months sale has been worked o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....also took shelter to the provisions of section 292C . As per section 292C a presumption can be raised in respect of books of accounts, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable articles found in the possession or control of any person in the course of search under section 132 or Survey under section 133A that the same belongs to such person. In case books of accounts, other documents or assets have been delivered to the requisitioning Officer under section 132A, it is deemed that the same have been taken into custody from such person. We quote section 292 C as under: 292C. [(1)] Where any books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing are or is found in the possession or control of any person in the course of a search under section 132 [or survey under section 133A], it may, in any proceeding under this Act, be presumed- (i) that such books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing belong or belongs to such person; (ii) that the contents of such books of account and other documents are true; and (iii) that the signature and every ot....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....statement was immediately retracted by the Assessee on 04.04.2009 and 08.04.2009 by way of two separate affidavits. Therefore it becomes essential to have corroborative evidence while relying on such retracted statement. In the case in hand the Assessing Officer has not gathered the evidence from Sales Tax Department, but it was stated to have been requisitioned by the Investigation wing, even otherwise the Assessing Officer has not examined the said evidence or any witness to prove the said evidence or even the Assessee was not examined to confront the said evidence. Once the assessee denied that the alleged documents belong to him it was incumbent upon the Assessing Officer to prove the same by examination of necessary witness as well as the Assessee. Further the primary evidence to show that the requisitioned record belongs and assessee is the Panchnama if any drawn by Sales Tax Department. Assessing Officer did not lay hand to any such Panchnama to prove that said record was seized from the possession of the assessee. In view of the fact that the Sales Tax Department has arrived at a different conclusion to that of the Assessing Officer while appreciating the material in questi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aras, we find no infirmity in his order deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer for different years on account of estimated profit on suppressed turnover. We accordingly uphold the same and the grounds raised by the Revenue in all the years on this issue are dismissed. 24.7 So far as the addition sustained by him amounting to Rs. 1,27,98,184/- for A.Y. 2009-10 on account of estimated profit on suppressed sales to M/s. Ambika Enterprises, Mumbai is concerned, the said addition has to be deleted in view of the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of the said dealer namely, Dharmesn Manibhai Patel vide ITA No.4522/Mum/2012 order dated 14-06-2013. Admittedly, the above decision was not available when the CIT(A) passed the order. Since the income on account of suppressed sale has been deleted by the Tribunal in the hands of Shri Dharmesh Patel, therefore, there is no question of any unaccounted sale by the assessee to Shri Dharmesh Patel. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee for the A.Y. 2009-10 is allowed. 25. Ground of appeal No.4 by the Revenue reads as under : "4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the CIT(A) err....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....graphs, we have already held that the order of the CIT(A) deleting the additions made in A.Yrs. 2003-04 to 2006-07 and 2007-08 to 2009-10 are justified and does not require any interference in absence of evidence of any unaccounted sales. We have also deleted the addition sustained by the CIT(A) for A.Y. 2009-10. Since there is no finding of any unaccounted business, therefore, there is no requirement of any additional capital. In this view of the matter, we uphold the order of the CIT(A). Ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 28.1 Similar ground has been raised by the Revenue for A.Y. 2009-10. Following our above reasoning the ground raised by the Revenue for A.Y. 2009-10 is also dismissed. 29. Ground of appeal No.5 by the Revenue reads as under : "5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the CIT(A) erred in not accepting the rejection of books of accounts u/s.145 of the Act, by the AO for the A.Y. 2003-04". 29.1 Facts of the case, in brief, are that the AO during the course of assessment proceedings examined the books of accounts vis-à-vis the seized documents, statement recorded from various persons and came to the conclusion that the bo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the auditors have also not pointed out any mistake. The Excise authorities have also examined the books of accounts and accepted the same. During the course of search no evidence whatsoever was found so as to come to a conclusion that the assessee was indulging in any business outside books of account. Further the stock as per books tallied with the physical stock on the date of search and there is no addition on account of excess/shortage of stock. The submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the cash balance as on the date of search tallied with the books of accounts could not be controverted by the Ld. Departmental Representative. We find in regular assessment proceedings the books of accounts were always accepted and there is no past history to justify the rejection. 31.1 It has been held in various judicial decisions that before rejecting the books of accounts the AO must record a clear finding that correct profit cannot be determined from the method of accounting adopted. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Poonam Rani reported in 326 ITR 323 and as relied on by the Ld. counsel for the assessee has observed as under (Short Notes) : "Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Held, dismissing the appeal, that the Assessing Officer had not pointed out any particular defect or discrepancy in the account books maintained by the assessee. The Assessing Officer had no material before him to accounts of the assessee as defective or incomplete. The Assessing Officer had no material before him on the basis of which it could be said that the weight of the wire did not increase even marginally during the process of enamelling. Therefore, he had no justification in law to reject the explanation given by the assessee in this regard. The fall in gross profit ratio, in the absence of any cogent reasons could not by itself be a ground to hold that proper income of the assessee could not be deduced from the accounts maintained by the assessee and consequently, could not have been a ground to reject the accounts invoking section 145(3) of the Act. There was no finding that the actual cost of the raw material or the actual cost of processing carried out purchased by the assessee was less than what was declared in the account books. There was no finding by the Assessing Officer that the actual quantity of the finished product produced by the assessee was more than what it....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....owned by it at Rs. 80,41,241/-. Similarly, the assessee has also debited petrol expenses to the tune of Rs. 30,67,608/-. Keeping in view the personal element involved in use of these vehicles, the Assessing Officer made adhoc disallowance @20% and disallowed an amount of Rs. 86,54,762/-. 34. Before the CIT(A) it was pointed out that the disallowance was wrongly worked out at Rs. 86,54,762/- and the actual figure should have been Rs. 22,21,770/-. Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Sayaji Iron and Engineering Company Vs. CIT reported in 253 ITR 749 it was argued that in the case of a Private Limited Company, which is a distinct assessable entity as per definition of person u/s.2(31), there cannot be any personal expenditure on account of depreciation on vehicles and petrol diesel expenses. 35. Based on the arguments advanced by the assessee the Ld.CIT(A) deleted the disallowance by observing as under : "52. I have considered the submission of the appellant with reference to the facts of the case. The disallowance of depreciation on cars and disallowance of expenditure on petrol on expected personal use of directors cannot be taken ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s a case of company as held in the case of Sayaji Iron & Engg. Co. v. CIT [2002] 253 ITR 749/121 Taxman 43 (Guj.) wherein, the decision that no disallowance on account of personal use of the vehicles/telephone by the directors/officials could be made in the hands of a company was upheld and the ad hoc disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was deleted. 55. Following the above decisions the disallowance made on account of depreciation and petrol of vehicles is deleted for both the assessment years." 35.1 Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A) the Revenue is in appeal before us. 36. After hearing both the sides, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A). Admittedly, the assessee is a Pvt. Ltd. Company. The Ld.CIT(A) has deleted the adhoc disallowance made by the Assessing Officer by following the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Sayaji Iron and Engineering Company (Supra). Similar view has been taken by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Urmila & Company Ltd., reported in 20 Taxmann.com 324 and Ramkishin Textiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO reported in 16 Taxmann.com 57 which have been relied on by the CIT(A). The Ld. Departme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the other persons on the date of sale. It was submitted that the Assessing Officer had not brought on record the date of purchase of other cars and their purchase price. Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Vs. CIT reported in 26 ITR 775 it was argued that the Assessing Officer is not entitled to make pure guess and make an assessment without reference to any evidence or any material at all. 39. Based on the arguments advanced by the assessee the Ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition for both the years. While doing so, he noted that the Assessing Officer came to the conclusion drawn by the Investigation Wing wherein the modus operandi by the assessee is to ask other persons to purchase the vehicles that he wants and then transfer the same in his own name at a later date about half the price of the original cost. According to the Assessing Officer these purchases are effected in a short span of time from the time of original purchase. So far as the 4 instances given by the Assessing Officer are concerned, the Ld.CIT(A) noted that the Assessing Officer has not examined any of the sellers and he has simply relied on the conclusion d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... books of account. For this purpose, he referred to the statement of one Mr. Ponkshe who has stated to have sold one Maruti SX4 car to Ghodawat Group at Rs. 7 lakhs whereas the amount reflected in the balance sheet was Rs. 3.50 lakhs only. He had also given an example towards purchase of one Mercedez SClass car to Mr. Sunil Ramanlal Shah, a LIC agent which was purchased by Shri Shah at Rs. 56,29,015/- but sold to the assessee at Rs. 31 lakhs. He had also given examples in respect of cars purchased from Shri S.F. Chougule, Sangli and Shri H.T. Tamboli, Satara. The AO accordingly made addition of Rs. 43,79,015/- on account of unaccounted investment in cars for the impugned assessment year (under identical circumstances the AO made addition of Rs. 15 lakhs during A.Y. 2005-06). We find in appeal the Ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the AO on account of excess money paid towards purchase of cars on the ground that the AO has not examined any of the sellers and he has only relied upon conclusions drawn by the Investigation Wing. He further noted that the vehicle was purchased from Mr. Ponkshe during F.Y. 2007-08, therefore, the same is relevant for making addition in A.Y. 2008-09 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... year under consideration has shown gross agricultural receipt of Rs. 5,33,69,815/- and after claiming expenses of Rs. 1,70,85,615/- has declared net agricultural income at Rs. 3,62,84,200/-. He noted that the percentage of expenditure over gross receipts comes to 32% whereas the percentage of net agricultural income shown over gross receipts worked out to 79.03%. He observed that the ratio of expenditure over gross receipt is a little better than the earlier years where net income was shown at 83.67% over gross receipts in the immediately preceding year and 87% in AY. 2004-05. Inspite of the above fact he observed that the expenditure shown appears to be very low so far as the claim of assessee that better quality crop is taken. After analysing the figures for past years and following his order for A.Y. 2006-07 wherein the issue was decided by taking the expenditure over gross receipts at 45%, which was accepted by the assessee, the AO made addition of Rs. 1,00,45,781/-, the computation of which was as under : Gross Agri Receipt shown Rs. 5,33,69,815/- Expenses @45% Rs. 2,40,16,417/- Net Agricultural Income Rs. 2,93,53,398/- Net Agricultural inc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er : "3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the CIT(A) erred in deleting the factual additions of Rs. 7,37,685/- for the A.Y. 2009-10 made by the AO with regard to silver coins". 45.1 Facts of the case, in brief, are that during the course of search silver coins valued at Rs. 73,76,853/- were found. In absence of any explanation for the source of the investment, the AO made addition of the same. 46. Before the CIT(A) it was submitted that the assessee had purchased 66 kgs of silver from Hundia exports vide bill dated 10-12-2008 for Rs. 11 lakhs which was manufactured into coins by Sagar Traders for Rs. 13,282/-. It was argued that these bills were debited to advertisement account and that the coins were given to distributors on achieving sales target. The assessee also produced copies of ledger accounts and bills for the same and submitted that the AO had not confronted the assessee with this issue at the assessment stage, otherwise the assessee could have produced the documents. It was further argued that no seizure was made of the silver coins. 47. Based on the arguments advanced by the assessee the Ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition holding that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Udyog Bhavan, Lalbaug Industrial Estate, Ganesh Naga Lalbaug, Mumbai-400012 do here solemnly state and declare under oath that: 1) I was summoned u/s 13i of income lox Act, 1961 by Asst. Director of Income Tax Investigation) Unit-3. Kolhapur vide summons dated 23 March, 2009 to attend his office at Aaykar Bhavan, Pune on 25 March, 2009, in the case of Sanjay Ghodoval group. 2) By my laxed letter dated 24 March, 2009, I had sought an adjournment for 10 days as I was out of station and also requested to give suitable appointment after 2 April, 2009. 3) On 31 March, 2009 at around 11.55a.m. I again received summons by fax to appear before Asst. Director of Income Tax Investigation) Unil-3. Kolhapur on the same day at 4.00pm at Pune, Aaykar Bhavan. This was not possible as I was advised by my physician to take bed rest for my back pain problem. I requested for adjournment fill 2 April 2009. Continued on gage 2 Document 2 KOP/574,565,566,561, 562,563,564/10-11 99 Ghodawat Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd. AYS 2003-04 to 2009-10: :2: EPUTY OPOLITAN STRAR GISTRATES COURTS 4) Accordingly, despile of having back pain I ....