ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, TRICHY vs. VIJAY DAIRY AND FARM PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUSIRI, TRICHY

2 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,90,57,625/ 2 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,90,57,625/ 2 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,90,57,625/-, being 26.75% of GP of unaccounted sales of Rs.7,12,43,457 (difference between SAP 26.75% of GP of unaccounted sales of Rs.7,12,43,457 (difference between SAP 26.75% of GP of unaccounted sales of Rs.7,12,43,457 (difference between SAP data and RoI) quantified i data and RoI) quantified in the assessment order.

2.1 The CIT(A) erred in accepting the reconciliation furnished by the assessee 2.1 The CIT(A) erred in accepting the reconciliation furnished by the assessee 2.1 The CIT(A) erred in accepting the reconciliation furnished by the assessee with regard to sales, without appreciating that the assessee has arrived net with regard to sales, without appreciating that the assessee has arrived net with regard to sales, without appreciating that the assessee has arrived net sales as 109.75 crores after deducting sales returns of 1.23 crores from Sal sales as 109.75 crores after deducting sales returns of 1.23 crores from Sal sales as 109.75 crores after deducting sales returns of 1.23 crores from Sales figure as per SAP data of 110.98 Crores. But while reconciling sales as per figure as per SAP data of 110.98 Crores. But while reconciling sales as per figure as per SAP data of 110.98 Crores. But while reconciling sales as per return of income, the assessee has taken sales figures as per books at 109.75 return of income, the assessee has taken sales figures as per books at 109.75 return of income, the assessee has taken sales figures as per books at 109.75 Crores and again deducted sales return of Rs.1.23 Crores. Hence the Crores and again deducted sales return of Rs.1.23 Crores. Hence the Crores and again deducted sales return of Rs.1.23 Crores. Hence the reconciliation furnished by the reconciliation furnished by the assessee is not correct.

2.2 The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee company has claimed 2.2 The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee company has claimed 2.2 The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee company has claimed FOC Invoices, discounts N credit notes while reconciling the sales as per books FOC Invoices, discounts N credit notes while reconciling the sales as per books FOC Invoices, discounts N credit notes while reconciling the sales as per books of accounts with sales admitted in the returns of income and the assessee ha of accounts with sales admitted in the returns of income and the assessee ha of accounts with sales admitted in the returns of income and the assessee had not produced any evidences in support of such claims during the assessment not produced any evidences in support of such claims during the assessment not produced any evidences in support of such claims during the assessment proceedings.

3. For these grounds and any other ground including amendment of grounds 3. For these grounds and any other ground including amendment of grounds 3. For these grounds and any other ground including amendment of grounds that may be raised during the course of the appeal proceedings, the order of that may be raised during the course of the appeal proceedings, the order of that may be raised during the course of the appeal proceedings, the order of learned CIT(Appeals) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be als) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be als) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.

5.1 The brief facts as noted are that, the assessee is a Private Limited The brief facts as noted are that, the assessee is a Private Limited The brief facts as noted are that, the assessee is a Private Limited Company which had filed it Company which had filed its Return of Income [RoI] for AY 2016 s Return of Income [RoI] for AY 2016-17 on 16.10.2016, admitting total income of Rs.1,04,34,539/ 16.10.2016, admitting total income of Rs.1,04,34,539/-. Later, there was . Later, there was a survey u/s.133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as a survey u/s.133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as a survey u/s.133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act”) upon the assessee on 19.02.2019. Consequent to the su "the Act”) upon the assessee on 19.02.2019. Consequent to the su "the Act”) upon the assessee on 19.02.2019. Consequent to the survey, the AO is noted to have reopened the assessment for the relevant year by the AO is noted to have reopened the assessment for the relevant year by the AO is noted to have reopened the assessment for the relevant year by issue of notice u/s.148 of the Act. In response, the assessee is noted to issue of notice u/s.148 of the Act. In response, the assessee is noted to issue of notice u/s.148 of the Act. In response, the assessee is noted to have declared the same income as originally declared in the return of have declared the same income as originally declared in the return of have declared the same income as originally declared in the return of income filed u/s 139 of the Act. income filed u/s 139 of the Act. It is noted that, in the income tax It is noted that, in the income tax assessment completed u/s 147/143(3) of the Act dated 24.03.2022, the assessment completed u/s 147/143(3) of the Act dated 24.03.2022, the assessment completed u/s 147/143(3) of the Act dated 24.03.2022, the AO made additions on account of, AO made additions on account of, (i)difference towards milk purchase ifference towards milk purchase by way of unexplained investment u/s.69 of the Act unexplained investment u/s.69 of the Act of Rs.2,40,30,245/ Rs.2,40,30,245/- and (ii) gross profit on difference in sales on difference in sales data of Rs.1,90,57,625/ of Rs.1,90,57,625/-.

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who was pleased to delete both these additions. was pleased to delete both these additions.

5.2 Aggrieved, the Revenue is now before us. At the outset, it was Aggrieved, the Revenue is now before us. At the outset, it was Aggrieved, the Revenue is now before us. At the outset, it was pointed out by the Ld. AR that the Revenue has not challenged the action by the Ld. AR that the Revenue has not challenged the action by the Ld. AR that the Revenue has not challenged the action of the Ld.CIT(A) deleting the addition on account of unexplained purchase of the Ld.CIT(A) deleting the addition on account of unexplained purchase of the Ld.CIT(A) deleting the addition on account of unexplained purchase made u/s.69 of the Act to the tune of Rs.2,40,30,245/ made u/s.69 of the Act to the tune of Rs.2,40,30,245/-; and that the only ; and that the only & 275/Chny/2024 (AYs 2016 2016-17 & 2018-19) M/s.Vijay Dairy & Farm Products Pvt. Ltd. M/s.Vijay Dairy & Farm Products Pvt. Ltd. addition in dispute is the deletion of profit o addition in dispute is the deletion of profit on unaccounted sales of n unaccounted sales of Rs.1,90,57,625/-.

5.3 The facts relating to this issue are that, in the course of survey u/s The facts relating to this issue are that, in the course of survey u/s The facts relating to this issue are that, in the course of survey u/s 133A of the Act, the survey team came across the computers, wherein 133A of the Act, the survey team came across the computers, wherein 133A of the Act, the survey team came across the computers, wherein the data relating to sales were maintained by the assessee company in the data relating to sales were maintained by the assessee company in the data relating to sales were maintained by the assessee company in the SAP software. The survey team had compared the sales reported in he SAP software. The survey team had compared the sales reported in he SAP software. The survey team had compared the sales reported in the Income- Tax Return ( Tax Return (ITR) with the sales data maintained in the SAP with the sales data maintained in the SAP software and found difference of Rs.7,12,43,457/ software and found difference of Rs.7,12,43,457/-. The survey team is . The survey team is noted to have confronted this discrepancy with noted to have confronted this discrepancy with the General Manager the General Manager (Finance), Shri S.C.Paneerselvam, who according to the AO, was unable (Finance), Shri S.C.Paneerselvam, who according to the AO, was unable (Finance), Shri S.C.Paneerselvam, who according to the AO, was unable to clarify the same and sought additional time to furnish the details. The to clarify the same and sought additional time to furnish the details. The to clarify the same and sought additional time to furnish the details. The AO is noted to have observed that, even the Executive Director of the AO is noted to have observed that, even the Executive Director of the AO is noted to have observed that, even the Executive Director of the assessee company was assessee company was unable to furnish any suitable reply for the unable to furnish any suitable reply for the discrepancy in the sales. Hence, since the assessee company failed to discrepancy in the sales. Hence, since the assessee company failed to discrepancy in the sales. Hence, since the assessee company failed to give proper explanation about the discrepancy in the sales to the survey give proper explanation about the discrepancy in the sales to the survey give proper explanation about the discrepancy in the sales to the survey team, the AO had reopened the impugned assessment u/s 147 of the Act team, the AO had reopened the impugned assessment u/s 147 of the Act team, the AO had reopened the impugned assessment u/s 147 of the Act.

Before the AO, the assessee is noted to have furnished a reconciliation Before the AO, the assessee is noted to have furnished a reconciliation Before the AO, the assessee is noted to have furnished a reconciliation statement along with certain details/ statement along with certain details/ supporting’s. The AO however is . The AO however is noted to have rejected the same and held that difference in the sales of noted to have rejected the same and held that difference in the sales of noted to have rejected the same and held that difference in the sales of Rs.7,12,43,457/- between SAP data and I between SAP data and ITR data remained unexplained TR data remained unexplained and that this constituted suppressed sales of the assessee. The AO and that this constituted suppressed sales of the assessee. The AO and that this constituted suppressed sales of the assessee. The AO & 275/Chny/2024 (AYs 2016 2016-17 & 2018-19) M/s.Vijay Dairy & Farm Products Pvt. Ltd. M/s.Vijay Dairy & Farm Products Pvt. Ltd. accordingly worked out the profit embedded in the suppressed sales at accordingly worked out the profit embedded in the suppressed sales at accordingly worked out the profit embedded in the suppressed sales at gross profit of 26.75% i.e. Rs.1,90,57,625/ gross profit of 26.75% i.e. Rs.1,90,57,625/- and added the same to the and added the same to the total income. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) was pleased to delete the same. ppeal, the Ld.CIT(A) was pleased to delete the same. ppeal, the Ld.CIT(A) was pleased to delete the same.

Now the Revenue is in appeal before us. Now the Revenue is in appeal before us.

5.4 Before us the Ld. CIT, DR has primarily assailed the order of the Ld. Before us the Ld. CIT, DR has primarily assailed the order of the Ld. Before us the Ld. CIT, DR has primarily assailed the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on two counts. The first being, the reconciliation given by the CIT(A) on two counts. The first being, the reconciliation given by the CIT(A) on two counts. The first being, the reconciliation given by the assessee was not correct, as according to him, the assessee had already orrect, as according to him, the assessee had already orrect, as according to him, the assessee had already earlier computed net sales of Rs.109.75 Crs. after deducting sales earlier computed net sales of Rs.109.75 Crs. after deducting sales earlier computed net sales of Rs.109.75 Crs. after deducting sales-return of Rs.1.23 Crs. from sales figure as per SAP data of Rs.110.98 Crs. rs. from sales figure as per SAP data of Rs.110.98 Crs. rs. from sales figure as per SAP data of Rs.110.98 Crs.

According to him therefore, the action of the assessee takin According to him therefore, the action of the assessee takin According to him therefore, the action of the assessee taking sales figure as per SAP data at Rs.109.75 Crs. and again, deducting sales as per SAP data at Rs.109.75 Crs. and again, deducting sales as per SAP data at Rs.109.75 Crs. and again, deducting sales-return of Rs.1.23 Crs was erroneous, and it showed that the reconciliation Rs.1.23 Crs was erroneous, and it showed that the reconciliation Rs.1.23 Crs was erroneous, and it showed that the reconciliation furnished by the assessee was furnished by the assessee wasn’t correct. The second contention of the t correct. The second contention of the Ld. CIT, DR was that, though the a Ld. CIT, DR was that, though the assessee had reconciled the data by ssessee had reconciled the data by showing that the sales as per SAP data was the gross figure and that the showing that the sales as per SAP data was the gross figure and that the showing that the sales as per SAP data was the gross figure and that the sales as per ITR was net off sales return, FOC invoices, credit notes, etc., sales as per ITR was net off sales return, FOC invoices, credit notes, etc., sales as per ITR was net off sales return, FOC invoices, credit notes, etc., but satisfactory details in support of the same was not filed and that but satisfactory details in support of the same was not filed and that but satisfactory details in support of the same was not filed and that the reconciliation statement was bald and therefore not tenable. reconciliation statement was bald and therefore not tenable. reconciliation statement was bald and therefore not tenable.

Per contra, the Ld. AR for the assessee supported the order of the Per contra, the Ld. AR for the assessee supported the order of the Per contra, the Ld. AR for the assessee supported the order of the 5.5 Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR for the assessee explained that, the assessee was Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR for the assessee explained that, the assessee was Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR for the assessee explained that, the assessee was indeed maintaining its accounts using the SAP indeed maintaining its accounts using the SAP software but the data was software but the data was & 275/Chny/2024 (AYs 2016 2016-17 & 2018-19) M/s.Vijay Dairy & Farm Products Pvt. Ltd. M/s.Vijay Dairy & Farm Products Pvt. Ltd. :: 6 ::

maintained in different modules of SAP accounting system. Elucidating the maintained in different modules of SAP accounting system. Elucidating the maintained in different modules of SAP accounting system. Elucidating the same, the Ld. AR submitted that if sales take places, the same will be same, the Ld. AR submitted that if sales take places, the same will be same, the Ld. AR submitted that if sales take places, the same will be recorded in the sales ledger of the SAP system. Likewise, any sales recorded in the sales ledger of the SAP system. Likewise, any sales recorded in the sales ledger of the SAP system. Likewise, any sales-return will be shown in the separate ledger or module called ‘ own in the separate ledger or module called ‘ own in the separate ledger or module called ‘Sales return register’. Similarly, the discounts, FOC invoices, credit notes are . Similarly, the discounts, FOC invoices, credit notes are . Similarly, the discounts, FOC invoices, credit notes are accounted in separate SAP modules. He thus showed us that, when the accounted in separate SAP modules. He thus showed us that, when the accounted in separate SAP modules. He thus showed us that, when the accounts are finalized, all the relevant ledgers in the separa accounts are finalized, all the relevant ledgers in the separa accounts are finalized, all the relevant ledgers in the separate SAP modules are merged and the final figures are reported in Tally system. He modules are merged and the final figures are reported in Tally system. He modules are merged and the final figures are reported in Tally system. He therefore submitted that, in the sales ledger, the sales figure will be therefore submitted that, in the sales ledger, the sales figure will be therefore submitted that, in the sales ledger, the sales figure will be higher in the SAP module, as it is the gross sum. However, for the higher in the SAP module, as it is the gross sum. However, for the higher in the SAP module, as it is the gross sum. However, for the purposes of final accounts, the sale purposes of final accounts, the sales reported is net of sales return, s reported is net of sales return, discount, FOC invoices, credit notes etc., which is reduced from the gross discount, FOC invoices, credit notes etc., which is reduced from the gross discount, FOC invoices, credit notes etc., which is reduced from the gross figure reported in ‘Sales ledger’ of the SAP system. With this explanation, figure reported in ‘Sales ledger’ of the SAP system. With this explanation, figure reported in ‘Sales ledger’ of the SAP system. With this explanation, he took us through the reconciliation statement and showed us that, th he took us through the reconciliation statement and showed us that, th he took us through the reconciliation statement and showed us that, the figures indeed reconciled and that, the Ld.CIT(A) after examining the figures indeed reconciled and that, the Ld.CIT(A) after examining the figures indeed reconciled and that, the Ld.CIT(A) after examining the relevant facts has accepted the reconciliation provided by the assessee relevant facts has accepted the reconciliation provided by the assessee relevant facts has accepted the reconciliation provided by the assessee and gave a finding of fact that there is no difference between the sales and gave a finding of fact that there is no difference between the sales and gave a finding of fact that there is no difference between the sales reported in SAP and the ITR and therefo reported in SAP and the ITR and therefore, deleted the impugned re, deleted the impugned addition. He accordingly urged that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) does not addition. He accordingly urged that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) does not addition. He accordingly urged that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) does not call for any interference. call for any interference.

& 275/Chny/2024 (AYs 2016 2016-17 & 2018-19) M/s.Vijay Dairy & Farm Products Pvt. Ltd. M/s.Vijay Dairy & Farm Products Pvt. Ltd. :: 7 ::

We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed 5.6 before us. The issue involved in this appeal is in narrow compass. The before us. The issue involved in this appeal is in narrow compass. The before us. The issue involved in this appeal is in narrow compass. The only question before us is whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in holding only question before us is whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in holding only question before us is whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in holding that the assessee had reconciled the difference that the assessee had reconciled the difference between the sales as per between the sales as per SAP data with the sales reported in ITR. This is noted to be essentially a SAP data with the sales reported in ITR. This is noted to be essentially a SAP data with the sales reported in ITR. This is noted to be essentially a fact-based exercise. The reconciliation statement filed by the assessee, exercise. The reconciliation statement filed by the assessee, exercise. The reconciliation statement filed by the assessee, which is found placed at Page No.230 of the Paper Book, is as under: which is found placed at Page No.230 of the Paper Book, is as under: which is found placed at Page No.230 of the Paper Book, is as under:-

CUSTOMER WI CUSTOMER WISE SALES DATA Rs. Total SD sales report Total SD sales report 11098,60,521 11098,60,521 Less: Sale Return in SD data it is positive : Sale Return in SD data it is positive -123,53,029 123,53,029 and hence we have to deduct twice to and hence we have to deduct twice to arrive net sales arrive net sales Sales as per SD Data Sales as per SD Data - IT Dept 10975,07,492 10975,07,492 Less As stated above Sales Return Data to Less As stated above Sales Return Data to -123,53,029 123,53,029 be deducted twice deducted twice Less: FOC Invoices & Credit note : FOC Invoices & Credit note -61,63,728 61,63,728 Less: credit note : credit note -9,26,626 9,26,626 Less: Price difference : Price difference -460,94,649 460,94,649 Less: Sale of SMP Conversion packing : Sale of SMP Conversion packing -47,429 47,429 bags Total Revenue from operations Total Revenue from operations - As 10319,22,030 10319,22,030 per ITR 5.7 The first objection raised by the Ld. CIT, DR to the above The first objection raised by the Ld. CIT, DR to the above The first objection raised by the Ld. CIT, DR to the above reconciliation was that, the sales as per SAP data was Rs.110. 98 Crs and reconciliation was that, the sales as per SAP data was Rs.110. 98 Crs and reconciliation was that, the sales as per SAP data was Rs.110. 98 Crs and not Rs.109.75 Crs. According to him, the assessee had deducted the not Rs.109.75 Crs. According to him, the assessee had deducted the not Rs.109.75 Crs. According to him, the assessee had deducted the same figure of sales return of Rs.1.23 Crs twice and the same figure of sales return of Rs.1.23 Crs twice and the same figure of sales return of Rs.1.23 Crs twice and therefore the reconciliation suffered from an apparent error. To this, the Ld. AR brought reconciliation suffered from an apparent error. To this, the Ld. AR brought reconciliation suffered from an apparent error. To this, the Ld. AR brought to our notice that, the sales reported in SAP records seized by the survey to our notice that, the sales reported in SAP records seized by the survey to our notice that, the sales reported in SAP records seized by the survey team was Rs.109.75 Crs and not Rs.110.98 crores. It was shown to us team was Rs.109.75 Crs and not Rs.110.98 crores. It was shown to us team was Rs.109.75 Crs and not Rs.110.98 crores. It was shown to us & 275/Chny/2024 (AYs 2016 2016-17 & 2018-19) M/s.Vijay Dairy & Farm Products Pvt. Ltd. M/s.Vijay Dairy & Farm Products Pvt. Ltd. that, before the AO, the a that, before the AO, the assessee had inadvertently added the sales ssessee had inadvertently added the sales- return to the sales as per SAP data and reported the net sales at return to the sales as per SAP data and reported the net sales at return to the sales as per SAP data and reported the net sales at Rs.110.98 Crs (Rs.109.75 Crs + Rs.1.23 Crs) instead of Rs.108.51 Crs Rs.110.98 Crs (Rs.109.75 Crs + Rs.1.23 Crs) instead of Rs.108.51 Crs Rs.110.98 Crs (Rs.109.75 Crs + Rs.1.23 Crs) instead of Rs.108.51 Crs (Rs.109.75 Crs – Rs.1.23 Crs). The Ld. AR accordingly pointed out that, in Rs.1.23 Crs). The Ld. AR accordingly pointed out that, in Rs.1.23 Crs). The Ld. AR accordingly pointed out that, in the above reconciliation, this error was rectified by first eliminating the above reconciliation, this error was rectified by first eliminating the above reconciliation, this error was rectified by first eliminating the erroneous addition of Rs.1.23 crores from the sales figure of Rs.110.98 erroneous addition of Rs.1.23 crores from the sales figure of Rs.110.98 erroneous addition of Rs.1.23 crores from the sales figure of Rs.110.98 crores and, thereafter the sales return was correctly reduced from the crores and, thereafter the sales return was correctly reduced from the crores and, thereafter the sales return was correctly reduced from the correct gross sales of Rs.109.75 crores t correct gross sales of Rs.109.75 crores to arrive at the net sales figure of o arrive at the net sales figure of Rs.108.51 crores. Having perused the facts available on record, we find Rs.108.51 crores. Having perused the facts available on record, we find Rs.108.51 crores. Having perused the facts available on record, we find this to be a classic case of unwanted confusion. The Ld. CIT, DR this to be a classic case of unwanted confusion. The Ld. CIT, DR this to be a classic case of unwanted confusion. The Ld. CIT, DR appearing for the Revenue, was unable to controvert the fact that, the appearing for the Revenue, was unable to controvert the fact that, the appearing for the Revenue, was unable to controvert the fact that, the sales as per SAP records was Rs.109.75 crores and not Rs.110.98 Crs. SAP records was Rs.109.75 crores and not Rs.110.98 Crs. SAP records was Rs.109.75 crores and not Rs.110.98 Crs.

This figure of Rs.110.98 crores is noted to have emanated from an This figure of Rs.110.98 crores is noted to have emanated from an This figure of Rs.110.98 crores is noted to have emanated from an arithmetical mistake committed by the assessee wherein they added the arithmetical mistake committed by the assessee wherein they added the arithmetical mistake committed by the assessee wherein they added the sales return of Rs.1.23 crores to the gross sales of Rs.109.75 sales return of Rs.1.23 crores to the gross sales of Rs.109.75 sales return of Rs.1.23 crores to the gross sales of Rs.109.75 crores instead of deducting it. For this reason, in the reconciliation statement, instead of deducting it. For this reason, in the reconciliation statement, instead of deducting it. For this reason, in the reconciliation statement, the figure of sales return is noted to have been eliminated twice by the the figure of sales return is noted to have been eliminated twice by the the figure of sales return is noted to have been eliminated twice by the assessee, first to correct their mistake and bring down the reported sales assessee, first to correct their mistake and bring down the reported sales assessee, first to correct their mistake and bring down the reported sales figure of Rs.110.98 crores figure of Rs.110.98 crores to correct sales figure of Rs.109.75 crores and to correct sales figure of Rs.109.75 crores and thereafter, the sales return was actually deducted from gross sales of thereafter, the sales return was actually deducted from gross sales of thereafter, the sales return was actually deducted from gross sales of Rs.109.75 crores to arrive at net sales of Rs.108.51 crores. Accordingly, Rs.109.75 crores to arrive at net sales of Rs.108.51 crores. Accordingly, Rs.109.75 crores to arrive at net sales of Rs.108.51 crores. Accordingly, & 275/Chny/2024 (AYs 2016 2016-17 & 2018-19) M/s.Vijay Dairy & Farm Products Pvt. Ltd. M/s.Vijay Dairy & Farm Products Pvt. Ltd. we find this particular argument of the Revenue to be unsustai we find this particular argument of the Revenue to be unsustai we find this particular argument of the Revenue to be unsustainable as the assessee had rightly pointed out that there was an inadvertent the assessee had rightly pointed out that there was an inadvertent the assessee had rightly pointed out that there was an inadvertent arithmetical mistake in the reconciliation statement wherein the sales arithmetical mistake in the reconciliation statement wherein the sales arithmetical mistake in the reconciliation statement wherein the sales- return was added to the sales as per SAP data instead of being reduced return was added to the sales as per SAP data instead of being reduced return was added to the sales as per SAP data instead of being reduced there from, which was corrected later. from, which was corrected later.

It is further noted that, the impugned difference in sales arose It is further noted that, the impugned difference in sales arose It is further noted that, the impugned difference in sales arose 5.8 because the AO had only considered the figure of sales reported in one because the AO had only considered the figure of sales reported in one because the AO had only considered the figure of sales reported in one module of SAP system i.e. ‘ module of SAP system i.e. ‘Sales Register’ and had ignored other modules and had ignored other modules which contained ledgers for sales return, discounts, FOC, price differences which contained ledgers for sales return, discounts, FOC, price differences which contained ledgers for sales return, discounts, FOC, price differences etc. We agree with the assessee that it a common accounting practice etc. We agree with the assessee that it a common accounting practice etc. We agree with the assessee that it a common accounting practice wherein data is maintained in different modules in SAP data is maintained in different modules in SAP i.e., i.e., sales will be in Sales Ledger and the Sales Return will be in a separate Ledger or les Ledger and the Sales Return will be in a separate Ledger or les Ledger and the Sales Return will be in a separate Ledger or module called Sales Return Register Sales Return Register etc. These separate ledgers are etc. These separate ledgers are merged while finalizing the financial statements and therefore the sales merged while finalizing the financial statements and therefore the sales merged while finalizing the financial statements and therefore the sales reported in the financials reported in the financials/ITR are a summation of the amounts mentioned he amounts mentioned across these different ledgers. We agree with the assessee that, had the across these different ledgers. We agree with the assessee that, had the across these different ledgers. We agree with the assessee that, had the AO considered all the different SAP modules, which contained separate AO considered all the different SAP modules, which contained separate AO considered all the different SAP modules, which contained separate ledgers for sales return, discounts, FOC, price differences etc. along with ledgers for sales return, discounts, FOC, price differences etc. along with ledgers for sales return, discounts, FOC, price differences etc. along with the main sales ledger, the net data would have reconciled with the sales edger, the net data would have reconciled with the sales edger, the net data would have reconciled with the sales figure reported in ITR. It is noted that, this aspect was rightly considered figure reported in ITR. It is noted that, this aspect was rightly considered figure reported in ITR. It is noted that, this aspect was rightly considered & 275/Chny/2024 (AYs 2016 2016-17 & 2018-19) M/s.Vijay Dairy & Farm Products Pvt. Ltd. M/s.Vijay Dairy & Farm Products Pvt. Ltd. by the Ld. CIT(A) while agreeing with the above reconciliation statement, by the Ld. CIT(A) while agreeing with the above reconciliation statement, by the Ld. CIT(A) while agreeing with the above reconciliation statement, by holding as under: -

“6.3.5 During the course During the course of Appellate Proceedings, the A.R. has of Appellate Proceedings, the A.R. has submitted the reconciled sales amount as under: submitted the reconciled sales amount as under:

Sales as per books of Accounts Sales as per books of Accounts 1079507492 1079507492 Less: Items to be considered: Less: Items to be considered: Sales Returns 12353029 FOC Invoices & N Credit Notes FOC Invoices & N Credit Notes 7090354 Discounts – Price Difference Price Difference 46094649 SMP conversion Bags SMP conversion Bags 47429 65585461 65585461

Net Sales to be admitted in ITR Net Sales to be admitted in ITR 1031922031 1031922031

As against the above, the Sales admitted in the ITR 6 uploaded by the As against the above, the Sales admitted in the ITR 6 uploaded by the As against the above, the Sales admitted in the ITR 6 uploaded by the assessee is as under: assessee is as under:

Part A – P & L – Item 1 A i Item 1 A i – Sale of Products 1026264035 1026264035

Part A – P & L – Item 1 A ii Item 1 A ii – Sale of Services 5657997 5657997

Total Sales admitted by the assessee Total Sales admitted by the assessee 1031922032 1031922032

6.3.6 Further, the A.R. during the course of Appellate Proceedings Further, the A.R. during the course of Appellate Proceedings Further, the A.R. during the course of Appellate Proceedings has submitted that SAP software is very much useful for continuous and has submitted that SAP software is very much useful for continuous and has submitted that SAP software is very much useful for continuous and processing indust processing industries as in the case of the Appellant Company, and ries as in the case of the Appellant Company, and claimed that the data is maintained in different modules in SAP. For e.g. claimed that the data is maintained in different modules in SAP. For e.g. claimed that the data is maintained in different modules in SAP. For e.g. sales will be in Sales Ledger and the Sales Return will be in a separate sales will be in Sales Ledger and the Sales Return will be in a separate sales will be in Sales Ledger and the Sales Return will be in a separate Ledger or module Ledger or module called Sales Return Register. This facilit called Sales Return Register. This facilitates the overall control over the processing in the industry. During the course of overall control over the processing in the industry. During the course of overall control over the processing in the industry. During the course of finalizing the accounts, both will be merged, and the final figures are finalizing the accounts, both will be merged, and the final figures are finalizing the accounts, both will be merged, and the final figures are reported in the Tally. Obviously, in sales ledger, the sales figure will be reported in the Tally. Obviously, in sales ledger, the sales figure will be reported in the Tally. Obviously, in sales ledger, the sales figure will be higher in the SAP module higher in the SAP module but for accounts purpose, the sales return has but for accounts purpose, the sales return has to be reduced from the sales ledger. Thus, the reconciled figure has to to be reduced from the sales ledger. Thus, the reconciled figure has to to be reduced from the sales ledger. Thus, the reconciled figure has to be taken into account for Income Tax purposes. be taken into account for Income Tax purposes.

6.3.7 The undersigned carefully examined the submission of the The undersigned carefully examined the submission of the The undersigned carefully examined the submission of the A.R. made during the cours A.R. made during the course of Appellate Proceedings. Based on the e of Appellate Proceedings. Based on the & 275/Chny/2024 (AYs 2016 2016-17 & 2018-19) M/s.Vijay Dairy & Farm Products Pvt. Ltd. M/s.Vijay Dairy & Farm Products Pvt. Ltd. reconciliation provided by the Appellant, there exists no difference reconciliation provided by the Appellant, there exists no difference reconciliation provided by the Appellant, there exists no difference between the sales reported in the SAP and ITR. The A.O. based upon the between the sales reported in the SAP and ITR. The A.O. based upon the between the sales reported in the SAP and ITR. The A.O. based upon the one part of the SAP module has arrived an erroneous conclusion that the one part of the SAP module has arrived an erroneous conclusion that the one part of the SAP module has arrived an erroneous conclusion that the Appellant has suppressed the sales. lant has suppressed the sales.

6.3.8 During the course of Appellate proceedings, the appellant has During the course of Appellate proceedings, the appellant has During the course of Appellate proceedings, the appellant has not produced any new evidence other than what is declared in the e not produced any new evidence other than what is declared in the e not produced any new evidence other than what is declared in the e- filed ITR u/s 139(1) of the Act as well as in the re filed ITR u/s 139(1) of the Act as well as in the re filed ITR u/s 139(1) of the Act as well as in the re-assessment proceedings before the proceedings before the AO. The Appellant has clearly established that AO. The Appellant has clearly established that the AO has grossly mistaken in arriving an erroneous sales figure with the AO has grossly mistaken in arriving an erroneous sales figure with the AO has grossly mistaken in arriving an erroneous sales figure with respect to the sales made by the appellant in the FY 2015 respect to the sales made by the appellant in the FY 2015-16 relevant to 16 relevant to AY 2016-17. In this back ground the undersigned is not inclined t 17. In this back ground the undersigned is not inclined t 17. In this back ground the undersigned is not inclined to accept the observation of the AO in treating the sales as suppressed and accept the observation of the AO in treating the sales as suppressed and accept the observation of the AO in treating the sales as suppressed and estimating the gross profit out such alleged suppressed sales. estimating the gross profit out such alleged suppressed sales. estimating the gross profit out such alleged suppressed sales. Accordingly all the grounds raised by the appellant upon this issue are Accordingly all the grounds raised by the appellant upon this issue are Accordingly all the grounds raised by the appellant upon this issue are treated as allowed and the AO is hereby direct treated as allowed and the AO is hereby directed to delete the addition ed to delete the addition of Rs.1,90,57,625/ of Rs.1,90,57,625/- made as sales suppression for the A.Y. 2016 made as sales suppression for the A.Y. 2016-17.”

5.9 We further observe that, the assessee had also furnished the We further observe that, the assessee had also furnished the We further observe that, the assessee had also furnished the relevant respective ledgers relevant respective ledgers as appearing in the books of the accounts g in the books of the accounts before the lower authoriti before the lower authorities. The assessee is also noted to have placed es. The assessee is also noted to have placed the party wise details for each of the items in the arty wise details for each of the items in the above r above reconciliation statement along with copy of the opy of the accounts of major parties s of major parties under the said sub-heads i.e. discount, FOC invoices, price difference etc. accompanie i.e. discount, FOC invoices, price difference etc. accompanie i.e. discount, FOC invoices, price difference etc. accompanied with sample vouchers. The assessee had also placed on record the with sample vouchers. The assessee had also placed on record the with sample vouchers. The assessee had also placed on record the reconciliation of the sales t reconciliation of the sales turnover with the VAT returns. It is noted that It is noted that the Revenue was unable to point out any infirmity i the Revenue was unable to point out any infirmity in these details which, n these details which, according to us, corroborated the above reconciliation statement. Even according to us, corroborated the above reconciliation statement. Even according to us, corroborated the above reconciliation statement. Even the AO didn’t point out any specific item or evidence, which in his view t point out any specific item or evidence, which in his view t point out any specific item or evidence, which in his view was missing qua the reconciliation statement. We are therefore of the was missing qua the reconciliation statement. We are therefore of the was missing qua the reconciliation statement. We are therefore of the considered view that, these details t, these details/supporting’s furnished by the assessee furnished by the assessee & 275/Chny/2024 (AYs 2016 2016-17 & 2018-19) M/s.Vijay Dairy & Farm Products Pvt. Ltd. M/s.Vijay Dairy & Farm Products Pvt. Ltd. were sufficient to corroborate the reconciliation statement showing that were sufficient to corroborate the reconciliation statement showing that were sufficient to corroborate the reconciliation statement showing that there was no difference in sales and that the sales as per SAP data and there was no difference in sales and that the sales as per SAP data and there was no difference in sales and that the sales as per SAP data and sales as per ITR reconciled. sales as per ITR reconciled. Accordingly, the second contention of the ntention of the Revenue that, the reconciliation furnished by the assessee was not Revenue that, the reconciliation furnished by the assessee was not Revenue that, the reconciliation furnished by the assessee was not backed by supporting’s supporting’s is found to be unjustified, on the facts as is found to be unjustified, on the facts as discussed in the foregoing. For these reasons, Ground No. 2 stands discussed in the foregoing. For these reasons, Ground No. 2 stands discussed in the foregoing. For these reasons, Ground No. 2 stands dismissed. Hence, the appeal of Revenue dismissed. Hence, the appeal of Revenue for AY 2016 for AY 2016-17 stands dismissed.

2018-19. Ground No. 1 is noted to be general in nature and is therefore . Ground No. 1 is noted to be general in nature and is therefore . Ground No. 1 is noted to be general in nature and is therefore does not require any specific adjudication. does not require any specific adjudication.

Ground No. 2 relates to the relates to the Ld. CIT(A)’s action of partially deleting action of partially deleting 7. the addition of profit of Rs.1,65,62,153/ the addition of profit of Rs.1,65,62,153/- made in relation to the made in relation to the unaccounted sales of Rs.7,72,12,834/ unaccounted sales of Rs.7,72,12,834/- viz., difference between the sales viz., difference between the sales as per SAP data and the sales reported in the return of income. as per SAP data and the sales reported in the return of income. as per SAP data and the sales reported in the return of income. After considering the rival submissions, it is observed that the rival submissions, it is observed that the rival submissions, it is observed that the facts and circumstances involved i circumstances involved is identical to the Ground No. 2 2 of Revenue’s appeal in AY 2016-17. . Like in AY 2016-17, the AO observed that the 17, the AO observed that the figure figure figure appearing appearing appearing in in in ‘Sales ‘Sales ‘Sales Ledger’ Ledger’ Ledger’ as as as per per per SAP SAP SAP data data data was was was Rs.137,91,27,740/-, whereas according to him, the sales reported in ITR , whereas according to him, the sales reported in ITR , whereas according to him, the sales reported in ITR was Rs.130,19,14,906/- - and therefore the difference of Rs.7,72,12,834/ and therefore the difference of Rs.7,72,12,834/- & 275/Chny/2024 (AYs 2016 2016-17 & 2018-19) M/s.Vijay Dairy & Farm Products Pvt. Ltd. M/s.Vijay Dairy & Farm Products Pvt. Ltd. was held by him to be unaccounted sales not reported in the income was held by him to be unaccounted sales not reported in the income was held by him to be unaccounted sales not reported in the income-tax return. The AO accordingly is found to have estimated return. The AO accordingly is found to have estimated profit @ 21.45% profit @ 21.45% on such unaccounted sales and added sum of Rs.1,65,62,153/ on such unaccounted sales and added sum of Rs.1,65,62,153/ on such unaccounted sales and added sum of Rs.1,65,62,153/- to the total income of the assessee. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) is noted to have total income of the assessee. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) is noted to have total income of the assessee. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) is noted to have considered the reconciliation statement furnished by the assessee along considered the reconciliation statement furnished by the assessee along considered the reconciliation statement furnished by the assessee along with all the data modules o with all the data modules of SAP system and found that the correct sales f SAP system and found that the correct sales figure as per SAP data net off sales return, discounts, FOC invoices etc. figure as per SAP data net off sales return, discounts, FOC invoices etc. figure as per SAP data net off sales return, discounts, FOC invoices etc. and after adding the sales figure sale of other products & services, and after adding the sales figure sale of other products & services, and after adding the sales figure sale of other products & services, contained in separate ledgers contained in separate ledgers/modules, which didn’t form part of t form part of the main ‘Sales Register’ module, was Rs. ‘Sales Register’ module, was Rs.130,51,61,814/- and that, the sales and that, the sales reported reported in in ITR ITR was was actually actually Rs. Rs.130,49,69,897 897/- and not Rs.130,19,14,906/-, as the AO had omitted to consider the figure of , as the AO had omitted to consider the figure of , as the AO had omitted to consider the figure of ‘Sales of services’ reported in reported in Item 1(A)(ii)of Part-A P&L A/c of the ITR. P&L A/c of the ITR.

Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) is found to have worked out the difference in the Ld. CIT(A) is found to have worked out the difference in the Ld. CIT(A) is found to have worked out the difference in sales figure between the SAP data and ITR at Rs.1,91,917/ sales figure between the SAP data and ITR at Rs.1,91,917/ sales figure between the SAP data and ITR at Rs.1,91,917/- and thereby restricted the addition of profit element to 21.45% of such difference restricted the addition of profit element to 21.45% of such difference restricted the addition of profit element to 21.45% of such difference being Rs.41,166/- as against Rs.1,65,62,153/ against Rs.1,65,62,153/- added by the AO. Now the added by the AO. Now the Revenue is in appeal before us. Revenue is in appeal before us.

Following our conclusion Following our conclusions drawn in A.Y. 2016-17 above 17 above, we find 7.1 that in this AY as well, the AO had only considered the figure of sales that in this AY as well, the AO had only considered the figure of sales that in this AY as well, the AO had only considered the figure of sales reported in one module of SAP sys reported in one module of SAP system i.e. ‘Sales Register’ Sales Register’ and had & 275/Chny/2024 (AYs 2016 2016-17 & 2018-19) M/s.Vijay Dairy & Farm Products Pvt. Ltd. M/s.Vijay Dairy & Farm Products Pvt. Ltd. ignored other modules which contained ledgers for sales return, ignored other modules which contained ledgers for sales return, ignored other modules which contained ledgers for sales return, discounts, FOC, price differences etc. and also ledgers of sales of other discounts, FOC, price differences etc. and also ledgers of sales of other discounts, FOC, price differences etc. and also ledgers of sales of other products & services. It is observed that, these separate ledgers were products & services. It is observed that, these separate ledgers were products & services. It is observed that, these separate ledgers were merged while finalizing the financial statements and therefore the sales inalizing the financial statements and therefore the sales inalizing the financial statements and therefore the sales reported in the financials reported in the financials/ITR are a summation of the amounts mentioned ITR are a summation of the amounts mentioned across these different ledgers. It is also noted that, while arriving at the across these different ledgers. It is also noted that, while arriving at the across these different ledgers. It is also noted that, while arriving at the sales as per ITR, the AO had only considered the sales as per ITR, the AO had only considered the figure of ‘sale of goods’ figure of ‘sale of goods’ and omitted to consider the figure for ‘ and omitted to consider the figure for ‘sale of services’, which was also , which was also reported in the ITR. We agree with the Ld. CIT(A) that, had the AO reported in the ITR. We agree with the Ld. CIT(A) that, had the AO reported in the ITR. We agree with the Ld. CIT(A) that, had the AO considered all the different SAP modules, which contained separate considered all the different SAP modules, which contained separate considered all the different SAP modules, which contained separate ledgers for sales return, discounts, FOC, price differences etc. along with urn, discounts, FOC, price differences etc. along with urn, discounts, FOC, price differences etc. along with the main sales ledger and other sales ledgers, the net data would have the main sales ledger and other sales ledgers, the net data would have the main sales ledger and other sales ledgers, the net data would have reconciled with the sales figure of goods & services reported in ITR, reconciled with the sales figure of goods & services reported in ITR, reconciled with the sales figure of goods & services reported in ITR, except a minor difference of Rs.1,91,917/ except a minor difference of Rs.1,91,917/-. Like in AY 2016 Like in AY 2016-17, the assessee is noted to have furnished the relevant ledgers, party assessee is noted to have furnished the relevant ledgers, party assessee is noted to have furnished the relevant ledgers, party-wise details, sample vouchers, GST reconciliation etc. in support of their details, sample vouchers, GST reconciliation etc. in support of their details, sample vouchers, GST reconciliation etc. in support of their reconciliation before the lower authorities. We thus countenance with the reconciliation before the lower authorities. We thus countenance with the reconciliation before the lower authorities. We thus countenance with the following findings of the Ld. CIT(A following findings of the Ld. CIT(A) analyzing the reconciliation statement ) analyzing the reconciliation statement furnished by the assessee and holding it to be tenable, except for a furnished by the assessee and holding it to be tenable, except for a furnished by the assessee and holding it to be tenable, except for a difference of Rs.1,91,917/ difference of Rs.1,91,917/-;- & 275/Chny/2024 (AYs 2016 2016-17 & 2018-19) M/s.Vijay Dairy & Farm Products Pvt. Ltd. M/s.Vijay Dairy & Farm Products Pvt. Ltd. :: 15 ::

6.3.5 During the course of Appellate proceedings, the A.R. has During the course of Appellate proceedings, the A.R. has During the course of Appellate proceedings, the A.R. has submitted the reconciled sales amount as under: submitted the reconciled sales amount as under: Sales as per Books of Accounts Sales as per Books of Accounts 1379127740 Less: Items to be considered: Less: Items to be considered: Sales Returns 103774824 FOC Invoices &N Credit Notes FOC Invoices &N Credit Notes 2236585 Discounts – Price Difference Price Difference 41450200 147461609 1231666131 Add: Sales of Non Milk Products Not Included Add: Sales of Non Milk Products Not Included in Above: Sale of Cattle Feed Sale of Cattle Feed 71819278 Sale of Tea Shop Products Sale of Tea Shop Products 704352 Sale of Café Products Sale of Café Products 972053 73495683 Sales to be admitted in ITR Sales to be admitted in ITR 1305161814 i) As against the above, the Sales admitted in the ITR 6 uploaded by As against the above, the Sales admitted in the ITR 6 uploaded by As against the above, the Sales admitted in the ITR 6 uploaded by the assessee is as under: the assessee is as under: Part A - P & L -Item 1 A i Item 1 A i - Sale of Products 1301914906 Part A - P & L -Item 1 A ii Item 1 A ii - Sale of Services 3054991 Total Sales admitted by the assessee Total Sales admitted by the assessee 1304969897

6.3.6 Further, the A.R. during the course of Appellate Proceedings Further, the A.R. during the course of Appellate Proceedings Further, the A.R. during the course of Appellate Proceedings has submitted that SAP software is very much useful for continuous and has submitted that SAP software is very much useful for continuous and has submitted that SAP software is very much useful for continuous and processing industries as in the case of the Appellant Company, and processing industries as in the case of the Appellant Company, and processing industries as in the case of the Appellant Company, and claimed that the data is maintained in different modules claimed that the data is maintained in different modules in SAP. For e.g. in SAP. For e.g. sales will be in Sales Ledger and the Sales Return will be in a separate sales will be in Sales Ledger and the Sales Return will be in a separate sales will be in Sales Ledger and the Sales Return will be in a separate Ledger or module called Sales Return Register. This facilitates the Ledger or module called Sales Return Register. This facilitates the Ledger or module called Sales Return Register. This facilitates the overall control over the processing in the industry. During the course of overall control over the processing in the industry. During the course of overall control over the processing in the industry. During the course of finalizing the accounts, finalizing the accounts, both will be merged, and the final figures are both will be merged, and the final figures are reported in the Tally. Obviously, in sales ledger, the sales figure will be reported in the Tally. Obviously, in sales ledger, the sales figure will be reported in the Tally. Obviously, in sales ledger, the sales figure will be higher in the SAP module but for accounts purpose, the sales return has higher in the SAP module but for accounts purpose, the sales return has higher in the SAP module but for accounts purpose, the sales return has to be reduced from the sales ledger. Thus, the reconciled fi to be reduced from the sales ledger. Thus, the reconciled fi to be reduced from the sales ledger. Thus, the reconciled figure has to be taken into account for Income Tax purposes. be taken into account for Income Tax purposes. The undersigned carefully examined the submission of the The undersigned carefully examined the submission of the The undersigned carefully examined the submission of the 6.3.7 A.R. made during the course of Appellate Proceedings. Based on the A.R. made during the course of Appellate Proceedings. Based on the A.R. made during the course of Appellate Proceedings. Based on the reconciliation provided by the Appellant, there exists a difference reconciliation provided by the Appellant, there exists a difference reconciliation provided by the Appellant, there exists a difference between the sales reported in the ITR and Sales to be admitted. between the sales reported in the ITR and Sales to be admitted. between the sales reported in the ITR and Sales to be admitted. The sales as per ITR is Rs. 130,49,69,897/ sales as per ITR is Rs. 130,49,69,897/- and the sales to be admitted is and the sales to be admitted is Rs.130,51,61,814/ Rs.130,51,61,814/-. Thus there exits a shortfall in admission of sales . Thus there exits a shortfall in admission of sales amounting to Rs.1,91,917/ amounting to Rs.1,91,917/-(130,51,61,814 - 130,49,69,897) Obviously, 130,49,69,897) Obviously, this is the only sale not disclosed by this is the only sale not disclosed by the Appellant in its return of the Appellant in its return of income. However, the AO in the assessment order based upon the one income. However, the AO in the assessment order based upon the one income. However, the AO in the assessment order based upon the one & 275/Chny/2024 (AYs 2016 2016-17 & 2018-19) M/s.Vijay Dairy & Farm Products Pvt. Ltd. M/s.Vijay Dairy & Farm Products Pvt. Ltd. part of the SAP module has arrived at an erroneous conclusion that the part of the SAP module has arrived at an erroneous conclusion that the part of the SAP module has arrived at an erroneous conclusion that the Appellant has suppressed the sales to the extent of Appellant has suppressed the sales to the extent of Rs.7,72,12,834/ Rs.7,72,12,834/-. 6.3.8 During the During the course of Appellate Proceedings, the Appellant has course of Appellate Proceedings, the Appellant has not produced any new evidence other than what is declared in the e not produced any new evidence other than what is declared in the e not produced any new evidence other than what is declared in the e- filed ITR u/s 139(1) of the Act as well as in the reassessment filed ITR u/s 139(1) of the Act as well as in the reassessment filed ITR u/s 139(1) of the Act as well as in the reassessment proceedings before the A.O. The Appellant has clearly established that proceedings before the A.O. The Appellant has clearly established that proceedings before the A.O. The Appellant has clearly established that the AO has grossly mistaken in arriving an erroneous sales figure with AO has grossly mistaken in arriving an erroneous sales figure with AO has grossly mistaken in arriving an erroneous sales figure with respect to the sales made by the Appellant in the FY 2017 respect to the sales made by the Appellant in the FY 2017-18 relevant to 18 relevant to AY 2018-19. In this back ground the undersigned is not inclined to In this back ground the undersigned is not inclined to In this back ground the undersigned is not inclined to accept the observation of the AO in treating the accept the observation of the AO in treating the sales as suppressed and sales as suppressed and estimating the gross profit out such alleged suppressed sales. As per the estimating the gross profit out such alleged suppressed sales. As per the estimating the gross profit out such alleged suppressed sales. As per the reconciliation statement there exist a difference of only reconciliation statement there exist a difference of only Rs.1,91,917/ Rs.1,91,917/- in Sales which was not disclosed in the Return of Income. The Gross Profit Sales which was not disclosed in the Return of Income. The Gross Profit Sales which was not disclosed in the Return of Income. The Gross Profit upon such difference can only be the unaccounted income of the difference can only be the unaccounted income of the difference can only be the unaccounted income of the Appellant for the year under consideration. The GP upon Appellant for the year under consideration. The GP upon Appellant for the year under consideration. The GP upon such undisclosed sales shall be undisclosed sales shall be ( 21.45% of Rs.1,91,917)Rs. 41,166/ ( 21.45% of Rs.1,91,917)Rs. 41,166/-. Accordingly all the grounds raised by the Appellant upon this issue are Accordingly all the grounds raised by the Appellant upon this issue are Accordingly all the grounds raised by the Appellant upon this issue are treated as allowed allowed and the AO is hereby directed to and the AO is hereby directed to restrict the addition to the extent of Rs. 41,166/ addition to the extent of Rs. 41,166/- as against Rs. 1 as against Rs. 1,65,62,153/- determined as unaccounted salesfor the AY 2018-19. determined as unaccounted sales 7.2 For the above reasons, we see no reason to interfere with the order For the above reasons, we see no reason to interfere with the order For the above reasons, we see no reason to interfere with the order of Ld. CIT(A) and accordingly, this ground of the Revenue is dismissed. . CIT(A) and accordingly, this ground of the Revenue is dismissed. . CIT(A) and accordingly, this ground of the Revenue is dismissed.

Hence, the appeal of the Revenue for AY 2018 Hence, the appeal of the Revenue for AY 2018-19 also fails. 19 also fails.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed. In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed. In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed. 8.

Order pronounced on the 19th day of March, 2025, in Chennai. Order pronounced on the , in Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/ Sd/- (मनोज कुमार अ�वाल . वक�) अ�वाल) (एबी टी. (ABY T. VARKEY ABY T. VARKEY) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) लेखासद�य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �याियकसद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे�ई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated: 19th March, 20 , 2025. TLN & 275/Chny/2024 (AYs 2016 2016-17 & 2018-19) M/s.Vijay Dairy & Farm Products Pvt. Ltd. M/s.Vijay Dairy & Farm Products Pvt. Ltd. :: 17 ::