AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 1078
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of survey to the extent of Rs. 22,73,052/-. 2. The assessee in the present case is an individual, who is carrying on the business of trading in Marble and Granite under the name and style of his proprietary concern M/s. Radha Marble and Granite. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by him on 17.03.2016 declaring total income of Rs. 21,10,690/-. A survey under section 133A of the Act was carried out at the business premises of the assessee on 19.08.2014. During the course of survey, the physical stock as inventorised by the survey team was valued at Rs. 28,70,327/-. The stock as per the books of account of the assessee on the date of survey, however, was only to the extent of Rs. 4,20,327/-. The assessee during....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly treated the excess stock of Rs. 24,50,000/- found during the course of survey as explained and an addition to that extent was made by him to the total income of the assessee in the assessment completed under section 143(3) of the Act vide an order dated 12.12.2017. 3. Against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Act, an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and the following submission in writing was made on behalf of the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) in support of his case that the addition of Rs. 24,50,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged excess stock found during the course of survey was not sustainable:- "That the ld. AO erred in law a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....torship firm on date of survey was Rs. 4,20,327/- and the difference (2870327-420327)= Rs. 2450000/- was considered to be that of sole proprietorship firm as recorded in question no. 7 of the statement recorded 20.08.14 & 27.08.2014. As per the question and answer recorded in point no. 10 of the statement recorded on 20.08.14, the survey team determined the aforesaid difference as opening stock for AY 2015-16 and the opening stock as on 1.4.2014 was determined at Rs. 47,24,083/- vide question no.11, 12 and 13 of the statement recorded on the difference of Rs. 24,50,000/- was taken to be income for FY 2013-14 (AY 14-15). Accordingly the difference of Rs. 24,50,000/- was assessed in the AY 2014-15 and tax was paid thereon. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y of the trial balance for the period 1.4.14 to 11.8.14 (as recorded by the survey team on the date of survey vide page no. 8 to 11 of ID mark evidence no. RMG 6 is enclosed. Your honour will find that there was no purchase recorded therein upto date of survey during the period 1.4.14 onward, as the proprietorship firm was not doing the trading business in that period (the business was being carried over in the private limited company namely Radha Marbles & Granite P. Ltd.). The survey team valued the physical stock at Rs. 2,34,95,282/-. The stock recorded in the books of the private limited company namely Radha Marbles & Granite P. Ltd. was found as Rs. 2,06,24,955/- (vide page 70 of ID mark evidence No. RMG 12 of the survey team ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he survey team proposed to add the same amount twice and demanded tax in AY 14-15 as well as AY 15-16. The total difference in stock was Rs. 24,50,000/- only and the appellant has paid tax on same as computed by survey team in AY 14-15 and demanded tax on same again in AY 15-16 is not as per law as the same cannot be taxed twice. 8. The AO did not consider the facts in details although the same was duly explained to him and added Rs. 24,50,000/- without discussing the submission given by the appellant during the course of hearing". 5. The ld. CIT(Appeals) did not find the submission on behalf of the assessee to be fully acceptable and proceeded to sustain the addition of Rs. 24,50,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....luding statement given by the appellant during survey, I see no reason to disagree with the findings of the AO. However, the discrepancy to be reduced by Rs. 1,76,948/-. The addition of this ground is partly confirmed. This ground of appeal partly succeeds and, therefore, is partly allowed". Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. 6. I have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has reiterated before the Tribunal the submissions made before the authorities below that the difference in stock as found during the course of survey pertained to the immediately preceding year, i.e. A....