2022 (2) TMI 106

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....3) on 27.03.2015. The assessee has filed concise grounds of appeal which read as under:- 1. The CIT (Appeals) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 1,05,54,155/- as unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C of the Act without assigning proper reasons and justification and further ought to have appreciated that the provisions of Section 69C of the Act had no application to the factual matrix of the case. 2. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the computation of the unexplained purchases on various facets was wrong, erroneous, unjustified, incorrect, invalid and not sustainable both on facts bad in law. 3. The CIT (Appeals) erred in sustaining the disallowance of Rs. 13,19,853/- by invoking the provision of Section....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oduced purchase bills for Rs. 12.95 Lacs. The closing stock shown in the Balance Sheet was Rs. 300 Lacs whereas opening stock was reflected as Rs. 211.71 Lacs. The cost of material consumed was shown at Rs. 30.20 Lacs. On the basis of this data, Ld. AO concluded that the assessee should have purchased material for Rs. 118.49 Lacs as against the purchase bills of Rs. 12.95 Lacs as produced by the assessee. The same was computed as Opening Stock + Purchases-Closing Stock=Cost of raw material consumed. Further, no amount was shown as payable to sundry creditors. Since there was no evidence for payment of material worth Rs. 105.54 Lacs, it was to be presumed that expenditure was made outside the books. Accordingly, the amount of Rs. 105.54 Lacs....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....reas stock Rs. 250 Lacs has been reflected in the return of income. Therefore, the various pleas raised by Ld. AR are not acceptable. The complete onus to reconcile the accounts including stock valuation was on the assessee and the assessee has failed to do so. At the same time, we observe that the assessee's turnover has not been doubted by Ld. AO. The assessee is unable to explain the purchases of Rs. 105.54 Lacs and could not produce any evidence in support of the same. However, all these purchases could not have been termed as income of the assessee since the material purchased by the assessee would have been consumed in the manufacturing process. The manufacturing process would require consumption of raw material. Therefore, it cou....