2022 (4) TMI 578

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal: "1. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in making disallowance of Rs. 13,75,203/- u/s. 69C on account of purchase of raw material and stores. 2. The impugned appeal order is bad in law and on facts. 3. The appellant reserves the right to add, alter, amend, omit all or any of the grounds of appeal with permission of the Hon'ble appellate authority." 2. Briefly stated, survey action u/s. 133A of the Act was conducted at the business premises of the assessee firm on 20.03.2011. Excess stock of Rs. 28,49,800/- was, inter alia, found in the course of survey proceedings.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or to the survey proceedings but the same had remained omitted to be entered in books of account. It was also claimed by the assessee that the entries as regards the purchases in question were made at the relevant point in the stock register. In sum and substance, it was the claim of the assessee that though the purchases in question were made prior to the date of survey i.e. 29.03.2011 and were duly entered in the stock register, but the same had inadvertently remained omitted to debited in the purchase account. In order to verify the veracity of its aforesaid claim, the Assessing Officer directed the assessee to produce the so called stock register wherein entries qua the incoming stock of raw materials and stores were made at the time of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, i.e., after hearing the respondent revenue and perusing the orders of the lower authorities. 6. We have heard the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short 'DR') and perused the orders of the lower authorities. After having given a thoughtful consideration to the issue in hand, we find that it is an admitted fact that the assessee's claim of having made the aforesaid two purchases transactions aggregating to Rs. 13,75,203/- (Rs. 12,55,830/- (+) Rs. 1,19,365/-) could not be substantiated by it in the course of proceedings before the lower authorities. In our considered view, now when it was claimed by the assessee that it had purchased goods prior to the date of survey on 29.03.2011 and had ....