VISHWASRAO BALWANT KADAM,SANGLI vs. ITO WARD 2(1), SANGLI

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2009-10 arises against the CIT(A)-1, Kolhapur’s order dated 14.11.2019 passed in case no.SLI/374/2011-12 involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short the Act. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

The assessee’s first and foremost substantive ground seeks to reverse both the lower authorities’ action adding excess cash and excess stock of Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.8,50,000/-; respectively found during the course of survey conducted at his premises on 09.02.2009. There is hardly in dispute that this latter component of excess stock has been added on his alleged survey statement than any specific material found or seized during the course of survey. Mr. Desai could hardly dispute that such an addition based on mere oral admission hardly carries any weight in light of the CBDT twin circulars dated 10.03.2003 and 18.12.2014. Coupled with this, the assessee has relied upon as Khader Khan & Sons 25 Taxman.com 413 (SC). I therefore delete the impugned excess cash component addition of Rs.8,50,000/- for this precise reasons alone. Coming to the assessee’s excess addition of Rs.3,00,000/- found during the course of survey, the only necessary inference that could be drawn in such an instance is of cash sales in trading activity in building material and firewood only. I therefore confirm the impugned addition @ 15% GP coming to Rs.30,000/- only with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.2,70,000/- in other words. 3. Next comes the assessee’s fourth and fifth substantive grievances challenges cash deposits addition of Rs.1,50,000/- on 30.05.2008 and Rs.1,16,072/- which have been claimed to be out of its sales of various agricultural produces. The fact remains that neither the assessee has been able to file all the relevant details of his lands vis-à-vis the crop produce sold nor the department has disputed his status as a crop grower. Faced with this situation, I hold that a lump sum estimation of Rs.60,000/- each under both these heads would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as precedent. Ordered accordingly.

Lastly comes addition amount of Rs.4,59,841/- stated a claim to have been deposited in loan account out of milk sales receipts of the assessee’s father which has been rejected in both the lower proceedings. Mr. Desai could hardly dispute that the CIT(A) detailed discussion in para 13 and 14 in pages 8 and 9 has very much accepted that the assessee’s father has derived income from milk cooperative society. The fact also remains that the assessee himself has not been able to explain all the particulars of alleged milk receipts vis-à-vis the nexus with the deposits made in loan account nor the department has prima-facie disbelieved the corresponding explanation in principle. Faced with this situation, I hold that a lump sum addition of Rs.75,000/- shall be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not treated as precedent. Ordered accordingly. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.