TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (2) TMI 598
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d u/s. 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in brevity the Act) for A.Y. 2018-19. The impugned order was originated from the order of Ld. DCIT, Central Circle, Bellary (in brevity the AO), date of order 15.03.202, passed u/s. 143(3). 2. The issue is involved in both these appeals of two different assessees are identical and arises out of identical facts and circumstances. We therefore deem it convenient to pass common order and the decision in ITA No.1010/Bang/2022 shall apply mutatis mutandis in ITA No.1011/Bang/2022 for the assessment year 2018-19. 3. In the outset, we advert that both the appeals are of same nature of fact. By the consent of both the parties, we take the ITA No. 1010/Bang/2022 as lead case. 4. The assessee has taken th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7. Without prejudice to the above, the NFAC has grossly erred in upholding the assessment order wherein the tax has been wrongly levied at the rate of 60% under the provisions of Sec. 115BBE of the Act under the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. Without prejudice to the right to seek waiver of interest, the appellant denies himself liable to be charged interest under Section 234A and. 234B of the Act under the facts and circumstances of the case. The rate and period are not discernible in the order of assessment. The rate of interest, quantum on which levied, and the period of levy is wrong and requires to be corrected in accordance of law. 9. The appellant craves to add, alter or delete the addition and grant relief for advance....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....siness income. The Ld.AO had assessed by taking the stock as an income from other sources and addition was made u/s. 69B. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee invited our attention in AO's order which is reproduced as below: "7.7 From the above, it is evident that the excess stock of gold & Silver jewellery found over and above the book stock could not be explained by the assessee also needs to be assessed to tax u/s 69/69B of the Act. The assessee himself voluntarily admitted the unexplained investment in stock of Rs.50,39,395/- and offered the same for taxation in his Statement deposed during the course of survey / post survey proceedings. Hence, question of treating the said income of Rs.50,39,395/- admitted during the course of Survey u/s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ount of Rs. 10,03,840/- and assessee was not liable for the tax audit u/s. 44AB of the Act. But in business, the excess stock was declared in the trading account and the tax was paid on the difference of stock under normal rate. The Ld. Counsel relied on the order of the Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Bangalore in case of Ragavs Diagnostic & Research Centre Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT in ITA No. 423/Bang/2022 by order dated 09.09.2022. It was held as follows: - "13. From the plain reading of the section, it is clear that when an assessee offers no explanation or the explanation offered is not satisfactory in the opinion of the AO, then the amount of such expenditure is to be taxed as income u/s. 69C of the Act. The satisfaction to be recorded by the AO....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e." 11. The Ld. Counsel further relied on the order of ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench in case of M/s. Chokshi Hiralal Maganlal vs. DCIT in ITA No. 3281/Ahd/2009 by order dated 05.08.2011. The relevant para is extracted as below:- "14. To conclude, sum of Rs.8.10,011/- being difference in stock is represented by undeclared business income. It does not have a separate physical identity. It is to be only taxed under the head 'business'. Other assets have separate physical identity being furniture and fixtures, air conditioners etc. They cannot have a direct nexus with business and therefore investment therein has to be considered under section 69 only." 12. In our considered view that the assessee has confirmed the identity of investment ....