Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. Shri Sridhar Dora, JCIT, represented on behalf of the Revenue and Shri T.Banusekar, CA, represented on behalf of the assessee.

3. It was submitted by the Ld.AR that in the cross-objections the assessee has challenged the re-opening of the assessment. It was a further submission that in the Revenue's appeal, the Revenue has challenged the deletion of the addition made u/s.68 of the Act treating the cash advances received by the assessee as unexplained cash credit of the assessee. It was submitted by AO that the assessee is in the business of manufacturing and selling of Linear Alkyl Benzene Sulphuric Acid (in short "LABSA"). The assessee was running the business under proprietorship concern in the name of M/s.Srinivasa Chemicals Enterprises and the assessee was also manufacturing Acid Slurry, Spent Acid and detergent cake/powder. There was a survey conducted on the premises of the assessee on 14.02.2012 and a statement had been recorded from the husband of the assessee. On the basis of the statement, the AO had denied the addition of benefit of deduction u/s.80IB of the IT Act on the ground that no manufacturing activity was done by the assessee and had further made an addition representing cash advances received by the assessee deposited in her bank account. It was a submission that on merits, the Ld.CIT(A) had considered the submissions of the assessee and ITA No. 2519 to 2523/Chny/2016 & CO Nos.151-154/Chny/2016 :- 3 -:

had granted the assessee the benefit of deduction u/s.80IB of the Act in Para No.4.2.2 of his order, wherein, he agreed that the production of LABSA by the assessee is a manufacturing process. It was a submission that the issue of the grant of benefit of deduction u/s.80IB has not been challenged by the Revenue. It was a submission that in regard to the issue of addition made u/s.68, representing the cash advances received by the assessee has been included in the turnover of the assessee and had been tallied with the corresponding sales, the Ld.CIT(A) had given relief to the assessee in Para No.4.2.2 to 4.3.4 of his order. It was a submission that the Ld.CIT(A) has categorically given a finding that the assessee has maintained regular books of accounts and the same had been audited, a fact accepted by the AO and the correctness of the book results related to the production of LABSA has been accepted in the past. Neither the excise authorities nor the sales tax authorities have found any discrepancy in the records maintained by the assessee. Neither excess stock nor unaccounted cash was found in the course of survey proceedings. It was a submission that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) was consequently liable to be upheld. The Ld.AR drew our attention to various pages of the Paper Book to submit that the advances received have been culminated into sales and the sales have been billed and the same have also been accounted in the books of the assessee.