Sikandar And Company, Sangli V. Income-tax Officer, Ward - 2(1), Sangli

ITA 1463/PUN/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1007 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 10 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-08-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 13-09-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1463/PUN/2018 नधा रण वष / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Sikandar and Company, Guruwar Peth, At and Post Battis Shirala-415408 Dist. Sangli, Maharashtra PAN : AAFFS0433C Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Sangli (Appellant) (Respondent) आदेश / ORDER PER R.S.SYAL, VP : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A)-1, Kolhapur on 02-07-2018 in relation to the assessment year 2009-10. 2. Though several grounds have been raised in the memorandum of appeal, but the ld. AR pressed only the ground challenging the confirmation of addition of excess stock of Rs.5,85,955/-. Other grounds are, therefore, dismissed as ‘not pressed’. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in wholesale and semi-wholesale business of Kirana, Bhusar and Cattle field. Survey action u/s.133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Appellant by Shri Kishor Phadke Respondent by Shri M.G. Jasnani Date of hearing 02-08-2022 Date of pronouncement 02-08-2022 ITA No. 1463/PUN/2018 Sikandar and Company 2 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) was conducted on 09/10-02-2009 at the business premises of the assessee. During the course of survey, excess stock of Rs.5,85,955/- was found. Mr. Shafi Allabaksha Mulla, partner of the assessee firm, admitted the excess stock and also offered additional income to this extent. However, in the return filed for the year under consideration, the assessee did not offer the excess stock declared during the course of survey. On being called upon to explain the reasons, the assessee submitted that it had retracted from the disclosure vide its letter dated 15-04-2009 submitting that while preparing tentative trading account at the time of survey, there were some mistakes, such as, some purchase bills were not considered at the time of survey, some total mistakes, some cash sale entries were also not considered. The Assessing Officer (AO) required the assessee to substantiate the argument with the help of the relevant freight charges or toll tax or municipal tax etc. depicting the entry of goods before the receipt of respective invoices. The assessee could not furnish such evidence, which led to the making of addition of Rs.5,85,955/-. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition, against which the assessee has come up in appeal before the Tribunal. ITA No. 1463/PUN/2018 Sikandar and Company 3 4. I have heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record. The ld. AR contended that the inventory at the time of survey was prepared by considering certain items of stock, which were though taken into the physical inventory but the matching purchase bills were received later on. In the like manner, the assessee also contended before the AO that there were some total mistakes. On a pertinent query, neither any total mistake could be pointed out nor the assessee could place on record any evidence to show that certain items of stock were included in the inventory at the time of survey but the corresponding purchase bills were received afterwards. The assessee even does not maintain any purchase register which could help it to establish its averment. Since the assessee at the time of survey clearly admitted excess stock to this extent, the onus is upon the assessee to retract with cogent evidence. A mere assertion that certain purchase bills were received afterwards, cannot come to the rescue, as the assessee could not prove this fact with relevant evidence. In the absence of any such evidence having been brought on record, I am of the considered opinion that the authorities below were not unjustified in making the said addition of Rs.5,85,955/- which was on account of assessee’s suo motu offering ITA No. 1463/PUN/2018 Sikandar and Company 4 the excess stock during the course of survey but not included in the total income. The impugned order is countenanced. 5. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 02 nd August, 2022. Sd/- (R.S.SYAL) उपा य / VICE PRESIDENT प ु णे Pune; दनांक Dated : 02 nd August, 2022 Satish आदेश क त ल प अ े षत / Copy of the Order is forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant; 2. यथ / The Respondent; 3. The CIT(A)-1, Kolhapur 4. 5. The Pr.CIT-1, Kolhapur वभागीय त न ध, आयकर अपील!य अ धकरण, प ु णे “SMC” / DR ‘SMC’, ITAT, Pune; 6. गाड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशान ु सार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune ITA No. 1463/PUN/2018 Sikandar and Company 5 Date 1. Draft dictated on 02-08-2022 Sr.PS 2. Draft placed before author 02-08-2022 Sr.PS 3. Draft proposed & placed before the second member -- JM 4. Draft discussed/approved by Second Member. -- JM 5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS Sr.PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS 7. Date of uploading order Sr.PS 8. File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS 9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk 10. Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11. Date of dispatch of Order. *