Ita/433/2014 Of Satish Kumar v. Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH ITA4332014 (O&M)Date of decision:29 O07 JQOL Satish Kumar. ..Appellant Versus. Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula ...Respondent CORAMHONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.J. VAZIFDAR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICEHON5BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SAANDHAWALI Present: Mr. Ravi Shankar, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate,for the respondent.for the respondent. ee S.J. VAZIFDAR, A.C.J. (QRAL) This is an appeal against the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal dated 09.06.2014 dismissing the appeal against the order of theCIT (Appeals) which upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer of a sum otf435 lacs to the income of the appellant/assessee. The matter pertains to the assessment year 2008-2009. oODuring the course of survey proceedings under Section 133-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, excess cash, excess stock, investment inunaccounted purchases and discrepancies in the books were found. Thequantum in respect of each of these items is as follows:- (i)Excess casha“2,97,2/1/-) (11)Excess stock|10,65,788/- (111)Investment in unaccounted purchase &C15,46,000/-element ofprofit thereon |element ofprofit thereon | (iv) Misc. income to cover other discrepanciesa2,90, 941/- in books Total|35,00, 000 3The assessee admitted the aforesaid declaration. He accepted thateach of these items was separate. Despite the same, the return of incomefiled by the assessee was only of a sum of|L20 lacs in respect of excesscash, excess stock and miscellaneous income on account of otherdiscrepancies. In answer to a query in this regard, the assessee stated that asthe undisclosed income on account of excess stock had already beendeclared and unrecorded purchases would be included in that he filed thereturn of only|420 lacs in the above regard. The Assessing Officer rejectedthe contention. It is noted that during the survey discrepancies regarding theunrecorded purchases as well as the stock were found. The assessee hadvoluntarily accepted that the discrepancies were separate and pertained todifferent transactions. The assessee had made a separate declaration ofundisclosed income on both the heads. It was only subsequently at the timeof filing the return that the assessee claimed that the discrepancies pertainedto the same transactions. This attempt was rejected by the Assessing Officer.4AThe CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal upheld the finding. Whetherthe two amounts ought to be telescoped into one or not is a question thatcould be answered only on appreciation of evidence. No substantial questionof law arises. 5.The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. © 29.07.2015Amodh (S.J. VAZIFDAR)ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (G.S. SANDHAWALIA) |JUDGE