TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (2) TMI 1044
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on 22-09-2021. The grounds taken by the revenue are as under: 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is erroneous on facts of the case and in law. 2. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.4,15,48,917/- made towards excess physical stock during the survey and directing to assess only Rs.3,69,139/-, being Gross profit on stock difference as per the working given by the assessee during the assessment proceedings. 2.1. The CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the assessee had not made any claim during the survey that the physical stock value of 15,14,64,938/- included GST and GP component. The assessee had not provided detailed item wise reconciliation neither at the time of survey nor during ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... proceedings. 3.2. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that since the source for purchase of stock was not explained to the satisfaction of the AO, the AO rightly invoked the provisions of Sec. 69 and calculated tax as per the provisions of Sec. 115BBE of the Act. As is evident, the sole issue that arises for our consideration is addition of excess physical stock as found during the course of survey. 2. The Ld. CIT-DR supported the findings given by the survey team and assailed the findings of Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT-DR submitted that impugned addition was based on stock variation found during survey proceedings. the Ld.AR, on the other hand, submitted that impugned order is based on reconciliation filed by the assessee which duly exp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....guments of the assessee on the ground that the assessee did not furnish any evidence for GST component and accepted the valuation made at the time of survey. The assessee did not raise any objection nor furnished any evidence to justify the valuation of stock. Finally, the amount of Rs.415.48 Lacs was added to income of the assessee as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act which would be taxable at rates prescribed u/s 115BBE. Appellate Proceedings 4.1 The Ld. CIT(A) concurred with the assessee's submissions that AO did not bring on record any specific material to disprove the contentions and arguments of the assessee. Further, Ld. AO should not have merely relied upon sworn statement but should have made additional efforts in proving....