TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (4) TMI 906
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....w on the subject, the learned commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in making addition of Rs.67,53,500/- on account of fresh capital introduced in firm treated as alleged unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Act. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in making addition of Rs.34,50,000/- on account of alleged unsecured loans treated as alleged unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in making addition of Rs. 49,70,500/- on account of alleged suppressed its 'pass income' treated as undisclosed income. 5. It is therefore prayed that the above addition may please be deleted as learned members of the tribunal may deem it proper. 6. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of the hearing of the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submissions put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the facts of the case including the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and other material brought on record. Shri P.M. Jagasheth, Learned Counsel submits before the Bench that assessee could not furnish confirmation and proof in respect of additions made in Ground No.2 and 3, reason being one of the Co-partners has killed another Co-partner on the occasion of Garba festival, therefore, there was fight/quarrel and serious dispute among the partners, and one of the partners put into jail by Police/Court, hence required documents could not be submitted before the assessing officer and ld CIT(A). Therefore, ld Counsel prayed the Bench that an opportunity should be given to the assessee to produce required documents and evidences before the assessing officer to prove the identity of the depositors, genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the depositors and fresh capital introduced by the partners. 9. Ms Usha Shrote, the Ld. DR for the Revenue submitted before us that at the time of assessment,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt proceedings, the assessing officer noticed from the copy of provisional profit and Loss account submitted before the ITO (Inv.), Surat, wherein the assessee has shown indirect income of Rs. 1,60,64,700/- including 'Pass income' of Rs. 89,50,000/-. Thereafter, the assessee had furnished another copy of Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss account as on 31.03.2008, in which, the assessee has shown "Pass Income' of Rs. 39,79,500/- only as against Rs. 89,50,000/- shown in the provisional Profit and Loss account as on 31.12.2007. Therefore, assessing officer was of the view that assessee had furnished another copy of Profit and Loss account with a view to suppress the 'Pass Income' to the tune of Rs. 49,70,500/- (Rs. 89,50,000- Rs. 39,79,500) for the event organized during the year under consideration. The assessee has failed to furnish supporting evidence therefore assessing officer made addition of Rs. 49,70,500/- to the total income of the assessee, being undisclosed income received during the previous year. 13. On appeal, ld CIT(A) has confirmed the addition made by Assessing Officer. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before us. 14. We have heard both the par....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....equently, when the accounts was reconciled, the pass income increased to Rs. 89,50,000/-from the income shown of Rs. 39,79,500/- on which the net profit Rs. 1,01,908/- has been shown. We note that assessee has shown voluntarily the higher pass income at Rs. 89,50,000/- as compared to earlier pass income at Rs. 39,79,500/- therefore, it should not be doubted that assessee has concealed his income. Now coming to the next question whether turnover/sales is treated as income or net profit embedded in sales is treated as income of the assessee. In this regard we note that Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of President Industries 258 ITR 654 held that only net profit embedded in sales should be treated as income. The findings of the Hon'ble court is reproduced below: "2. The facts giving rise to the present case are that during the course of survey conducted on the premises of the assessee on 1-12-1994, from the excise records found, inference was drawn by the Assessing Officer from the movement of finished goods from the premises of the assessee to godowns that sales amounting to Rs. 29,01,300 have not been disclosed in the books of account. The Assessing Officer made the additi....