Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Indore
The Acit, Circle, Ratlam vs M/S. Shri Rajendra Rishabh Ginning & ... on 6 November, 2020
आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, इंदौर यायपीठ, इंदौर
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
INDORE BENCH, INDORE
BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No.1339/Ind/2016
Assessment Year: 2012-13
Asstt. Commissioner of M/s. Shri Rajendra
Income Tax, Vs. Rishabh Ginning &
Circle- Ratlam Pressing,
Krishi Kunj, Karamdi
Road, Ratlam (M.P)
(Revenue ) (Appellant)
PAN No.ABFFS2539G
Revenue by Smt. Vinita Dubey, Sr.DR
Appellant by Shri Manoj Fadnis, CA
Date of Hearing 15.09.2020
Date of Pronouncement 06.11.2020
ORDER
PER MANISH BORAD, AM.
The above captioned appeal filed at the instance of revenue pertaining to Assessment Year 2012-13 is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short 'Ld.CIT'], Ujjain dated 22.09.2016 which is arising out of the order u/s 143(3) of the ITA No.1339/Ind/2016 Rajendra Rishabh Ginning & Pressing Income Tax Act 1961(In short the 'Act') dated 31.03.2015 framed by DCIT-Ratlam.
2. Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal :-
1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.2,16,10,195/- made on account of excess stock.
3. The brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the assessee firm is engaged in the business of cotton ginning & pressing. During financial year 2011-12 (Assessment Year 2012-
13) a survey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted at the business premises of the assessee on 24.01.2012. Some discrepancies were noted and excess stock was found. During survey the assessee failed to give any explanation for the excess cash of Rs.9,67,687/- and excess physical stock at Rs.1,91,20,210/-. The assessee agreed to disclose undisclosed income of Rs.2,00,87,897/- in the income tax return. Return of income was filed on 30.9.2012 at Rs.76,96,446/-. Case selected for scrutiny under CASS followed by serving of notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. Various information were called for. Ld A.O after considering the written 2 ITA No.1339/Ind/2016 Rajendra Rishabh Ginning & Pressing submission of the assessee made disallowance of interest at Rs.5,58,623/- and disallowance of contract payment of Rs.1,86,000/- was made. As regards the survey proceedings though the assessee had shown undisclosed income at Rs. 2,00,87,897/- in the Profit & Loss account under the head other income, Ld. A.O noticed some discrepancies in stock records, unaccounted sales and completed the assessment after making addition of Rs. 2,16,10,195/- on account of excess stock over and above the excess stock of Rs. 1,91,20,210/- surrendered by the assessee during the survey proceedings. Income assessed at Rs.3,00,51,264/-.
4. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and partly succeeded. Now the Revenue is in appeal against the deletion of addition of Rs.2,16,10,195/- made on account of excess stock by Ld. A.O.
5. Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued supporting the order of Ld. A.O.
6. Ld. Counsel for the assessee supported the order of Ld. CIT(A) and made following submission;
3 ITA No.1339/Ind/2016 Rajendra Rishabh Ginning & Pressing
1. That the Id. AO had erred in making addition of Rs. 2,16,10,195/- as discussed on Page No. 10 of the order of Ld. AO.
2.That the Id. CIT(A) has deleted the said addition of Rs 2,16,10,195/against which the Department has preferred the present appeal. The addition of Rs. 2,16,10,195/ - has been correctly deleted by Id. CIT(A) for reasons recorded from page no. 7 to 10 of his order.
3.That the Id. AO has at page 10 of his order has summarized the additions as under.-
Physical stock found during survey Rs.8,68,37,210/- Stock available elsewhere of the business Rs.47,37,447/-
premises at Ratlam Stock available at Phulambari, Rs.55,05,835/-
Aurangabad Total Physical Stock Rs.9,70,80,492/-
Less: Stock as per books (Re-casted) Rs.5,63,50,087/ -
Excess Stock Rs.4,07,30,405/-
The stock surrendered during the survey Rs. 1,91,20,210/ -
Difference to be added Rs.2,16,10, 195/-
Addition of Rs 47,37,447/- Stock available elsewhere of the business premises at Ratlam
4. That the Id. AO has made addition of stock available elsewhere of the business premises at Ratlam of Rs. 47,37,447[- at Page No. 8 of his order. He has held as under.-
"From the above it is noticed that the assessee has not sold the lot no. from 139 to 141 and further 143 to 147. As such these bales should be available in the closing stock at the time of survey. Each lot has 100 bales having quantity around 1.65 Qtl. Therefore total stock of cotton in bales at the time of survey should be as under:-4 ITA No.1339/Ind/2016
Rajendra Rishabh Ginning & Pressing Sr.No. Lot No. Qty (in bales) 1 139 100 2 140 100 3 141 100 4 143 100 5 144 100 6 145 100 7 146 100 8 147 60 Total 760 However at the time of survey the no. of bales found were 547 only. It shows that balance 213 bales were available with the assessee but the same were placed somewhere else therefore the survey party could take physical stock of the same. The total quantity of such excess bales is approx 351 Qtl. The value of such bales is worked out at Rs. 47,37,447/-, which was to be included in physical stock."
5.That the above finding of the Id. AO is factually not correct. The cotton bales of lot No. 139, lot No. 144 and Lot No. 143 were issued out of stock on 24.01.2012 but the invoices were raised on 25.01.2012, because of ongoing survey. The following evidence have been filed as under:-
Lot No 139 Paper Book Particulars Page No Invoice No 163 dt Page No 39 25.01.2012 Gate Pass No 467 dated Page No 40 24.01.2012 Toll Kanta of Page No 56, 24.01.2012 Sr. No. Form 49 of MP Page 57 & Commercial Tax Dept 58 dated 25.01.2012 5 ITA No.1339/Ind/2016 Rajendra Rishabh Ginning & Pressing Lot No 144 Paper Book Particulars Page No Invoice No 165 dt Page No 41 25.01.2012 Gate Pass No 466 dated Page No 42 24.01.2012 Toll Kanta of Page No 56, 24.01.2012 Sr. No. Form 49 of MP Page 59 & Commercial Tax Dept 60 dated 25.01.2012 Lot No 143 Paper Book Particulars Page No Invoice No 164 dt Page No 43 25.01.2012 Gate Pass No 465 dated Page No 44 24.01.2012 Toll Kanta of Page No 56, 24.01.2012 Sr. No. Form 49 of MP Page 61 & Commercial Tax Dept 62 dated 25.01.2012
6. That from the above details it is evident that :-
a) The goods were removed from the stock on 24.01.2012.
b) The truck number is mentioned on the gate pass.
c) The Toll Kanta shows that the trucks were weighed on 24.01.2012 and appearing at S.no. 1, 13 and
15. The truck appearing at S.No. 2 to S.No. 12, 6 ITA No.1339/Ind/2016 Rajendra Rishabh Ginning & Pressing S.No. 14 and S.No. 16 to 21 belong to other parties, who have also used the same Toll Kanta facilities. This also emphasis that the genuineness of Toll Kanta cannot be doubted as trucks of assessee and others were weighed on 24.01.2012.
7.That the Form 49 is a document which is downloaded from the web site of Government of Madhya Pradesh, Commercial Tax Department. The date of Form 49 in each of the three cases is 25.01.2012. The same truck nos. are appearing in each of the said Form 49 as on the gate pass, invoice and the toll kanta receipt.
8.That as the above cotton lots of 139,144 and 143 were issued from stock in hand as they are about to be dispatched on 24.01.2012, they were rightly not included in the closing stock of Rs. 8,68,37,210/- as physically verified by the survey party.
9.That with the same understanding as of the survey team, the partner of assessee firm also confirmed the physical stock as taken by the survey team.
10.That the stock of Rs. 6,77,17,000/- as appearing in books of assessee on 24.01.2012 was arrived at after reducing the stock of Lot No. 139, Lot No. 144 and Lot No. 143.
11.That the difference between the physical stock of Rs. 8,68,37,210/ - and book stock of Rs. 6,77,17,000/- being Rs. 1,91,20,210/- was surrendered by the assessee during the survey proceedings.
12.That the total amount of Rs. 2,00,87,897/-(stock of Rs.1,91,20,210/- and cash of Rs. 9,67,687/-) was surrendered.
13.That the surrendered amount of Rs. 2,00,87,897/- was included as Other Income of Rs. 2,18,68,620/- in Profit & Loss A/c which is at Page 51 of paper book.
14.That the assessment was completed by the Id. AO on 31.03.2015. The dispatches were made on 25.01.2012 which is also proved by the truck numbers appearing on above documents including Form 49 generated from web site of Government of Madhya Pradesh, Commercial Tax Department
15.That the apprehension raised by Ld. DR that the assessee has back dated the gate passes, is completely misplaced. On 7 ITA No.1339/Ind/2016 Rajendra Rishabh Ginning & Pressing 24.01.2012 and 25.01.2012, the assessee could not have known that these dispatches would be subject matter of addition three years later.
16.That the original gate passes number 465,466 and 467 were seized by the Id. AO during the course of assessment and they are with the Income Tax Department.
17.That the Income Tax survey team was at factory premises till 06:00 a.m. on 25th January, 2012 and at Rishabh Agrotech Pvt Ltd., the other concern of the family till afternoon of 25th January, 2012. One may easily conclude that if the trucks were not in factory premises it was not practical that any dispatches on 25th January, 2012 could be made.
18.That the Id. AO has failed to appreciate the facts of above in correct perspective and has wrongly added Rs. 47,37,477/-·
19.That the Id. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition of Rs. 47,37,477 I-as discussed on Page No. 8 of his order.
20. That the order of the Id. CIT(A) may please be confirmed. Addition for stock available at Phulambari, Aurangabad at Rs. 55,05,835/-
21.That the Id. AO has on Page No. 9 and Page No. 10 of his order made an addition. of Rs. 55,05,835/ - on account of purchases from M/s Pragati Cotton Phulambari Dist Aurangabad. The amount of Rs. 55,05,835/- is arrived at by reducing the sales of Rs. 17,22,355/- from the purchases of Rs. 72,28,190/-
22.That the Id. AO has erred in reducing the sales value of Rs. 17,22,355/and not the cost of sales from the purchase price of Rs. 72,28,190/ - to arrive at the difference of Rs. 55,05,835/.
23.That the Id. AO failed to consider the invoice no. 16A and 17, both dated 09.08.2011 for sales, billed from Aurangabad to M/s Sai Jaya Jothi Co. Ltd., Tamil Nadu. These dispatches were made directly from Aurangabad to Tamil Nadu. The details of the invoice of transporter bill are filed in the paper book as per details here under:-
Invoice No. Invoice Name of Party Amount (Rs.) Gate Pass Gate Pass Paper Book Date No Date Page No. 17 09.08.2011 M/s Sai 13,77,662 15430 09.08.2011 32, 33 and Jayajothi & Co. 34 Ltd 15429 09.08.2011 16A 09.08.2011 M/s Sai 13,70,669 15428 09.08.2011 35, 36 and Jayajothi & Co. 37 8 ITA No.1339/Ind/2016 Rajendra Rishabh Ginning & Pressing Ltd 15427 09.08.2011 16 28.07.2011 Shri Rajendrsa 17,22,355 Local delivery 38 Fibres Add-
BabraPhata Taluka, Aurangabad, Maharashtra Total 44,70,646
24.That the ld. AO has considered these sale invoices when he worked out the sale from 01.04.2011 to 24.01.2012 as per Annexure A of his order. However, he has failed to consider that these sales were effected while arriving at difference of Rs. 55,05,835/-.
25.That the Id. CIT(A) at Page no. 8 and Page No. 9 of his order has rightly deleted the above addition.
26. That the order of the Id. CIT(A) may please be confirmed. ' Excess stock on account of recasted trading account: Rs. 1,13,66,913/-
27.That the Id. AO has considered the sum of Rs. 1,13,66,913/- as sales which has not been disclosed by the assessee as mentioned on Page No. 9 of his order. He has considered the total sales upto the date of survey Rs. 34,19,60,852/ - as per the details mentioned in Annexure A of his order.
28.That the trading account as re-casted by the Id. AO at page 9 of his order is as under.
Particulars Amount Particulars Amount
Opening Sales
3,52,09,433/- 40,85,12,881/-
stock account
Purchase 45,44,65,265/- Sales to be 1,13,66,913/-
entered in
accounts
books
Direct Closin
44,99,225/- 5,63,50,087/-
expenses g
stock(balancin
g figure)
Gross Loss 1,79,44,042/-
Total 49,41,73,923/- Total 49,41,73,923/-
9
ITA No.1339/Ind/2016
Rajendra Rishabh Ginning & Pressing
29.That the last five invoices appearing in Annexure A are of 25.01.2012 and have been wrongly included in Annexure A by the ld. AO. Invoices considered by ld. AO in Annexure A which are after the survey period are as under:-
Date Party B. No Lot Type Qty Rate Amount (In Correct Paper VAT and No. Rs.) Invoice Book Page CST (In Rs.) No. No. 19.01.2 Sri 158 135 Sale 160.05 13328.88 21,33,287 164 43 1,06,664 012 Ramdev Agencies 20.01.2 Sri 159 136 Sale 159.60 13328.88 21,27,289 165 41 1,06,364 012 Ramdev Agencies 20.01.2 Sri 160 137 Sale 158.95 13328.88 21,18,625 166 53 1,05,931 012 Ramdev Agencies 21.01.2 Ankur 161 138 Sale 169.30 13357 22,61,340 167 54 45,227 012 Txtiles 22.01.2 Ankur 162 142 Sale 166.70 13357 22,26,612 168 55 44,532 012 Textiles Total 1,08,67,153 4,08,718
30.That the above sales amount of Rs.l,08,67,153/- are excluding VAT and CST of Rs.4,08,718/-. If the VAT and CST amount is included then the total will be Rs.1,12,75,871/-.
31.That there are other mistakes in the said Annexure A such as wrong lot number etc. The total sales taken by the ld.AO of Rs.
34,19,60,852/- is not correct.
32.That the trading account has been worked out by the Id. AO on Page No. 9 of his order. The closing stock is taken as balancing figure of Rs. 5,63,50,087/- The ld. AO has not given any details as to how he has worked out the balancing figure.
33.That the Id. AO is not justified in considering the closing stock as a balancing figure when infact the survey team has physically verified the stock.
34.That the accounts prepared for the part of the year upto the date of survey are unaudited and provisional. Cut off transaction have not been considered. The yield considered for the part of the year as appearing on page 6 of the order of the Id. AO is not correct as the cut off transaction have not been given effect to. The full year's accounts have been audited.
35.That the addition of Rs.2,16,10,195/- is based on incorrect, inaccurate details worked out by Id. AO himself.
36.That the addition of Rs. 2,16,10,195/- has been rightly deleted by Ld. CIT(A).
37. 'That the order of Id. CIT(A) may please be confirmed. 10 ITA No.1339/Ind/2016 Rajendra Rishabh Ginning & Pressing
6. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us and also gone through the written submissions and paper book filed by the assessee from time to time. Revenue's sole grievance is against the finding of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition made by the Ld. A.O amounting to Rs.2,16,10,195/- on account of excess stock. We observe that survey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted on 24.01.2012 at the business premises of the assessee. Revenue authorities took physical stock and valued at Rs.8,68,37,210/-. Book stock on the date of survey was Rs.6,77,17,000/-. The excess stock of Rs. 1,91,20,210/- was surrendered and shown as other income in the audited profit and loss account. Ld. A.O after examining the records came to a conclusion that further addition of excess stock of Rs.2,16,10,195/- needs to be made on account of the following :-
(a) Excess stock of cotton bales
Kept at other place Rs. 47,37,447/-
(b) Unaccounted stock available at
Phulambari, Aurangabad Rs. 55,05,835/-
11
ITA No.1339/Ind/2016
Rajendra Rishabh Ginning & Pressing
(c) Addition for stock as per recasted
Trading account Rs.1,13,66,913/-
Total Rs.2,16,10,195/-
7. When the assessee aggrieved with this addition made by the Ld. A.O took up the matter with first appellate authority filing various documentary evidences, succeeded in satisfying Ld. CIT(A) that the Ld. A.O was not justified in making the alleged addition of excess stock. The relevant finding of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.2,16,10,195/- is mentioned below:-
Ground No.3:- Through this ground of appeal the appellant has challenged the addition of Rs.2,16,10,195/- on account of difference in stock. The AO has worked out the difference in stock amounting to Rs.2,16.10,105/-. The AO made the addition that cotton bales amounting to Rs.47,37,447/- has, not been included in the stock. The AO also concluded that cotton bales amounting to Rs.55,05,835/- which, were lying at PhulalT1bari has not been included in stock. The AO recasted the trading account and made the addition of Rs.1,13,66,913/-.
Cotton Bales: Rs.47 ,371447/-
The AO made the addition of Rs.47,37,447/- on the ground that bales of 'lot No. 139, 143 and 144 have not been included in the stock. The AO is not justified in concluding now that the stocks or above bales were not included in the stock. The above bales are loaded in the trucks and trucks were in the factory premises itself. The gate pass shows that trucks were standing in the factory premises at the time of 12 ITA No.1339/Ind/2016 Rajendra Rishabh Ginning & Pressing survey. The date of gate pass is 24.01.2012 whereas in the date of bill is 25.01.2012. It is highly unlikely to conclude now from the office that stock loaded in the trucks which were standing in the factory premises during the course of survey have not been included during the course of survey. The above cited bales were included in the sales of the appellant. The appellant raised the sales invoice and bills in respect of the above lot Nos. Therefore, the AO is not justified in concluding that the stock of bales of lot No. 139, 143 and 144 have not been included ill the stock.
Cotton bales lying at Phulambari : Rs.55,05,845/- The AO made the addition on the ground that appellant was having stock at Phulambari. A survey u/s. 133 was carried out in the business premises of the appellant on 24.01.2012. The appellant purchased the cotton bales from M/s. Pragati Cotton, Phulambari in the month of June and July. The appellant has sold the above stock in the month of August. The AO is not justified in concluding that stock maintained at Phulambari has not been included ill the stock. The appellant has made the purchases and sales of the above cotton bales before the date of survey. There is no question of physical stock at Phulambari when the sales of stock have already been taken place. Therefore, the AO is not justified in the making of addition on this account Excess stock on account of rccastcd trading account : Rs.1,13,66,913/-- The AO in the assessment order at page no. 9 prepared the recasted trading account. In the trading account he mentioned the closing stock at Rs.5,63,50,087/- as balancing figure. On this basis he has out the difference of Rs.l,l3,66,913/- in the closing stock. The department has carried out the survey at- the business premises of the appellant. All the documents and books and other incriminating paper found during the course of survey has been examined. There remains no scope of any estimation when all the papers has been verified by department during the course of survey. The AO is not justified in putting the balancing figure while evaluating the stock. When all the stock is physically examined there remains no scope for putting the balancing figure for valuation of the stock. The AO has not brought out any basis for adopting stock at Rs.5,63,50,087/- as balancing figure. 13 ITA No.1339/Ind/2016 Rajendra Rishabh Ginning & Pressing When the department has carried out of survey and verified each and every items, they remains no scope for drawing the recasted trading account by putting the balancing figure.
The appellant is maintaining books of account and same has been audited u/s 44AB of the I.T. Act. The AO is not justified in recalculating the value of additional stock as on date of the survey again by preparing recasted trading account.
Therefore, the addition made by the AO amounting to Rs.2,16,10,195/- is Deleted. 'The appeal on this ground is Allowed.
8. From perusal of the above finding of Ld. CIT(A) we find that he after referring to the relevant facts of the case arrived to this conclusion. To examine the same we will take up the three parts of the addition one by one.
9. As regards addition for excess stock of cotton bales at Rs.47,37,447/- we observe that as per the Ld. A.O lot No. 139 to 141, lot No. 143 to 147 were not sold and out of the 8 lots 7 having 100 bales in each lot and 60 bales in lot No. 147. So the assessee have possessed 760 bales of cotton. At the time of survey only 547 bales were found which shows that balance bales were 213 bales which were available with the assessee but were placed somewhere else. Ld. A.O accordingly computed the excess stock at 351 Quintal and valued at Rs. 47,37,447/-. We however find that the cotton 14 ITA No.1339/Ind/2016 Rajendra Rishabh Ginning & Pressing bales of lot No. 139, 143 and 144 were issued out of stock on 24.1.2012. Gate passes and weighing slip of toll kanta supporting the fact that the cotton of lot No.139, 143 and 144 outwarded from stock records were loaded in trucks for dispatch. However the invoices No. 163, 164 and 165 were issued for lot No. 139, 143 and 144 respectively on 25.1.2012. Thus we are satisfied with the documentary evidence that the alleged stock of cotton bales were part of book stock and they were issued out of stock on 24.1.2012 and were sold through the invoices issued on 25.1.2012. Physical stock was taken by the revenue authorities on the date of survey. Thus the action of the Ld. A.O making the addition for the unaccounted stock of cotton bales at Rs.47,37,447/- is not justified. We thus find no reason to interfere in the finding of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.47,37,447/-.
10. As regards addition for unaccounted stock at Rs. 55,05,835/- the alleged stock available at Phulambari, Aurangabad, we find that there was a purchase of Rs.78,28,190/- from M/s Pragti Cotton, Phulambari. As per the Ld. A.O only one sale of Rs.17,22,355/- was made and the remaining amount of purchase of 15 ITA No.1339/Ind/2016 Rajendra Rishabh Ginning & Pressing Rs.55,05,835/- was in stock which was not shown in the books of accounts and thus were liable for the addition. However during the perusal of the sales/invoices recorded by the Ld. A.O forming part of the assessment order, details of invoices issued from Aurangabad directly to the parties at Tamil Nadu, sales tax returns filed by the assessee, we are satisfied with the details filed by the assessee that against the quantity of goods purchased from Pragati Cotton, Phulambari equivalent quantity of goods were sold to other parties at Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra, though at loss due to poor market conditions but the quantity of goods purchased matches the quantity of goods sold from Aurangabad. Since the revenue authorities failed to prove anything contrary to the fact that there is no mismatch of quantity of goods purchased and sold at Aurangabad, the action of Ld. A.O making addition for the alleged stock at Rs.55,05,835/- lying at Aurangabad is not justified. Ld. CIT(A) has rightly appreciated the facts and deleted the addition, which thus needs no interference from our end.
11. As regards excess stock on account of recasted trading account at Rs.1,13,66,913/- Ld. A.O has adopted the never heard 16 ITA No.1339/Ind/2016 Rajendra Rishabh Ginning & Pressing before method for recasting the trading account computing the closing stock as balancing figure even when the revenue authorities have taken the physical stock at the time of survey on 24.01.2012. In the impugned assessment order trading account has been recasted wherein the closing stock is taken at Rs.5,63,50,087/- as on 24.1.2012. Now on the same day the book stock of the assessee at Rs. 6,77,17,000/- which was examined by the survey team. On the very same day physical stock taken and valued by the survey team is at Rs. 8,68,37,210/- so there are three figures of closing stock. Moving further in the assessment year Ld. A.O has referred to some mismatch in the sales figure mentioning that if the sales bill of cotton bales from 1.4.2012 to 24.1.2012 are totalled, the same would come to Rs. 34,19,60,852/-. However the assessee in its pre survey period trading account has shown the sales of cotton bales at Rs. 33,05,93,939/-. Based on these figures Ld. A.O computed the difference at Rs. 1,13,66,913/- and treated it as undisclosed sales. This finding of Ld. A.O is not correct as per the accounting treatment given by him in the assessment order because if the closing figure of closing stock computed by the Ld. 17 ITA No.1339/Ind/2016 Rajendra Rishabh Ginning & Pressing A.O at Rs. 5,63,50,087/- is added to the alleged unaccounted sales at Rs. 1,13,66,913/- the resultant figure is Rs. 6,77,17,000/- which matches with the stock in hand as per the books of accounts of the assessee as on 24.1.2012 which thus supports the contention of the assessee that Ld. A.O committed an error in totalling the sales details shown in the Annexure and added some few bills which were pertaining to post survey period i.e. 25.1.2012 to 31.3.2012. Since the figure of unrecorded sales and the figure of recasted closing stock by the Ld. A.O totals to Rs. 6,77,17,000/- and duly matches with the closing stock shown in the books of accounts, this observation of the Ld. A.O of the alleged unrecorded sales is devoid of any merit. Further the excess stock i.e. over and above at Rs. 6,77,17,000/- computed by the survey team at Rs.1,91,20,210/- has already been offered to tax as undisclosed income in the profit and loss account. The fact that 5 sales bills totalling to Rs.1,12,75,871/- were wrongly added by the Ld. A.O in the pre survey sale period is proved with the details placed on record showing invoice No. 164 to 168 were Rs. 1,08,67,153/- and VAT and CST of Rs.4,08,718/- are levied there on. We thus in the given 18 ITA No.1339/Ind/2016 Rajendra Rishabh Ginning & Pressing facts and circumstances of the case find no inconsistency in the finding of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of unrecorded sale at Rs.1,13,66,913/-.
12. Thus in view of our above discussion are of the considered view that the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition at Rs.2,16,10,195/- made by the Ld. A.O on account of excess stock. The sole ground raised by the revenue is dismissed.
13. The appeal of the revenue stands dismissed.
The order pronounced in the open Court on 06.11.2020.
Sd/- Sd/-
( KUL BHARAT) (MANISH BORAD)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
नांक /Dated : 06 November, 2020
/Dev
Copy to: The Appellant/Respondent/CIT concerned/CIT(A)
concerned/ DR, ITAT, Indore/Guard file.
By Order, Asstt. Registrar, I.T.A.T., Indore 19