TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 1066
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of appeal: 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is erroneous on facts of the case and in law. 2.1 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs. 3,46,10,055/- made on account of mark-up price. 2.2 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that there was no basis to show that the average mark-up is at 32% as against the average mark-up of 20-25% shown by the entire group. 3.1 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance Rs. 2,00,520/- being employees contribution to Provident Fund. 3.2 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the sum of employees contribution to PF were c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cal stock of inventory of textile was taken on tag price. Therefore, in order to arrive at cost of stock as on the date of search, the mark-up added by the assessee has been reduced by taking average gross profit rate declared by the assessee for the earlier years and accordingly, cost price of the physical stock has been worked out to Rs. 42.81 Crs. by reducing average gross profit rate of 13.43% from the tag price. Further, after comparing the physical stock available with the assessee to the book stock as on 18.08.2011, excess stock of Rs. 24.56 Crs. was determined and assessee has admitted the excess stock found during the course of search as undisclosed income. 4. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO has examined the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the value of closing stock as on the date of search and made additions to total income. 5. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed a detailed Written Submissions on this issue along with certain sample purchase bills and argued that it has mark-up of 32% to 47.5% on various products depending upon type of product and if you consider the average mark-up on all products, then it works out to 32%. Therefore, the AO is incorrect in allowing 25% of mark-up on tag price to arrive at closing stock as on the date of search. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the relevant submissions of the assessee and also taken note of sample copies of purc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the AO to reduce 25% of mark-up on tag price to arrive at cost of closing stock held as on the date of search. The Ld. AR for the assessee referring to sample invoice copies of purchases submitted that if you see the purchase invoices, it is noticed that the assessee having mark-up of 47.5% on some products and 32% mark-up on some products and if you average it, the mark-up, would works out to 32%. The Ld. AR further submitted that if you reduce mark-up of 32% on tag price, then the excess stock found during the course of search, works out to 20.47 Crs., which is lesser than the closing stock difference offered by the assessee to tax during the course of search. Therefore, argued that, the AO is incorrect in allowing 25% of mark-up to a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g price as against 32% mark-up claimed by the assessee. We find that the assessee has substantiated average mark-up of 32% with necessary evidences including sample purchase invoices, as per which, the average mark-up on various products ranges from 32% to 47.5%, whereas, the AO has taken average mark-up of 25% on the basis of mark-up allowed in other group concerns' case, but such rate is not supported with any evidences. Therefore, we are of the considered view that there is no reason for the AO to deviate from the method followed by the Investigation Wing to quantify excess stock held by the assessee as on the date of search by allowing mark-up on tag price of 32% when the assessee has justified mark-up of 32% on tag price of closing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dia Pvt. Ltd., by holding that employees' PF remitted beyond due date specified under the PF Act, but within due date specified u/s. 139(1) of the Act for filing return of income is allowable u/s. 43B of the Act. 10. Having heard both the sides and considered the materials on record, we find that the issue of belated remittances of employees' contribution to PF beyond the due date specified under respective Act, but within due date of filing of return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act, is not a res integra. The jurisdictional High Court, in the case of CIT v. Industrial Security & Intelligence India Pvt. Ltd., had considered the identical issue and held that employees' contribution to PF & ESI paid before the due date of filin....