TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 1299
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....egular assessment and the assessment order was passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on 13-4-2021. While completing the assessment, the assessing officer had made additions of Rs. 5,55,960/- u/s. 69A of the Act on account of alleged discrepancy in stock quantity. The LLP had preferred an appeal against the said assessment order before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 48, Mumbai. The appeal filed by the LLP was decided by the CIT(A) vide order dated 17-7-2023. The CIT(A) had rejected the contentions made and had dismissed our appeal confirming the addition of Rs. 5,55,960/- The said order of the CIT(A) was received by the firm somewhere around 27- 07-2023. 3. Our LLP had also filed an appeal to the CIT (A) - 48 for the earlier assessment year i.e. for assessment year 2017-18. The said appeal was decided by the CIT(A) on 5-4-2023 dismissing the appeal and confirming the addition of Rs. 80,00,000/- made for the assessment year 2017-18. 4. During the months of 1-08-2022 to till death, my father Shri Rajmal Dalchand Parekh was not keeping good health due to his old age and was suffering from Kidney disease. He had to be hospitalized during the months....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....antum appeal for AY 2017-18 and directed us to provide him with the copy of the appeal filed. When we checked the office file we found that there was no document available for the appeal filed to the Tribunal against the quantum addition in our case. 8. Since the appeal orders for AY 2017-18 and 2018-19 were both received in the same time period of April to July, 2023 and we came to know that the appeal for AY 2017-18 was not filed, we also checked about the status of the appeal filed for AY 2018-19. On inquiry with our regular chartered accountant, we came to know that the employee concerned had missed out to communicate with him about the disposal of the appeals against the assessment order for both the assessment years and accordingly he had not filed any appeal to the Tribunal against the appeal orders for both the years. 9. After going through the appeal order dated 17-7-2023 and the assessment order, the new chartered accountant, who has been requested to file appeal to the Tribunal against the order confirming the penalty for AY 2017-18, suggested to us that it will be appropriate to file the appeal to the Hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for both ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Your appellant respectfully submits that both the authorities has failed to appreciate that the difference in the stock is very nominal considering the level of the appellant's business. The appellant submits that there can be some small difference on account of difference at the time of weighing and measurement. However, such difference cannot lead to the stock being unexplained investment. (c) Without prejudice to the above, the appellant submits that in any case the provisions of section 69A of the Act cannot be applied in absence of any positive finding that the difference represented unexplained investment of the appellant. Such application of section 69A is only on conjectures, surmises and suspicions and therefore the same is not justified. (d) The appellant further submits that the lower authorities have erred in not appreciating that the difference if any is revenue neutral and gets adjusted in the subsequent year. As such. the impugned addition is not justified. (e) The appellant, therefore, prays that the addition of Rs. 5,35,960/- made u/s. 69A of the Act may please be deleted or any other relief as deemed fit may please be allowed to the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ck of Rs. 25,80,63,353/- on the date of survey. The learned AR submitted that such a difference can also arise due to differences in the weighing scale/machine used to measure the quantity of the goods. 10. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative ("learned DR") vehemently relied upon the orders passed by the lower authorities and submitted that apart from making the submission, the assessee has not brought on record any material to substantiate the difference in stock. 11. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. During the survey proceedings under section 133A of the Act conducted at the premises of the assessee, the following discrepancies in the physical stock vis-à-vis the stock recorded in the books were noticed: - Sr. No Particulars Stock as per books Physical stock as on 07.07.2017 Difference Approx. value 1 18 carat gold 18844.286 gms. 18851.17 gms. 6.884 gms. 16,900/- 2 22 carat gold 56717.681 gms. 56761.905 gms. 44.224 gms. 1,19,530/- 3 24 carat gold 597.433 gms. 1007.577 gms. 410.144 gms. 11,29,440/- 4 Silver ....