TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (1) TMI 1021
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) CIT(A) is bad both in the eye of law and on facts. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 9,70,640/- made by AO on account of cash surrendered at the time of survey. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of an amount of Rs. 31,80,470 /- made by AO on account of stock surrendered at the time of survey. 4 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of an amount of Rs. 18,98,000/- made by AO on account of expenditure incurred on renovat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessee was asked to produce the books of accounts for verification vide notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act dated 3.12.2014. Further vide notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act dated 10.10.2014, the assessee was asked to submitted its reply. After considering the replies, the AO held that assessee has filed retraction without any grounds and he failed to substantiate the same even during the assessment proceedings, hence, the disclosure made by him wroth Rs. 75 lacs during the survey proceedings was added to the total income of the assessee and income of the assessee was assessed at Rs. 90,22,400/- vide order dated 31.3.2015 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. Against the assessment order dated 31.3.2015, assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A), who vid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed for the assessment year in dispute. The AO has rejected the retraction on the ground that the same was obtained was under threat. The AO has stated that this retraction is an afterthought and self-serving statement as he has not substantiated the same with supporting document. The Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO holding that no explanation was offered by the assessee and no books of accounts are produced. The explanation given is vague and cursory. On going through the paper book we note that the above facts are not correct. A survey was carried out at the premises of the assessee on 23.03.2012. A statement of the assessee was recorded at the time of the search on 23.03.2012 which continue till 24.03.2012 as is evident from....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... whereas the valuation of the stock done at the time of survey was taken inclusive of taxes i.e. Excise and VAT. The assessee also submitted reconciliation statement which is placed at paper book page 59. In support of this reconciliation the assessee submitted complete details of the inventory and the invoices placed at paper book page 60 to 432. Regarding the excess cash it was explained that no excess cash was actually found but just to cover up the figure of Rs. 75 lacs, the amount of Rs. 9,70,640/- was got declared under pressure from the assesse. We note that as per the Board Circular, if during the course of search/survey any unrecorded cash found in excess of Rs. 5,00,000/- the Department is duty bound to seize the same which was n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ich the additional income was offered. Further on going through the statement recorded at the time of survey in respect to the difference in the stock, the assessee clearly stated that he will explain the discrepancy after consulting the records. Further, in the statement recorded there is no allegation coming out on account of any discrepancy in job work or expenditure on account of renovation. In the assessment order also the AO has not pointed out or referred to any material or evidence to substantiate the allegation that there was an discrepancy in the wages or expenditure incurred on the renovation. The difference in the stock has been duly explained by the assessee vide letter dated 25.03.2015 along with supporting evidences. The AO h....