T. JANAKI,ERODE vs. DCIT, SALEM

आदेश / O R D E R

PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

Subsequently, the AO completed the assessment u/s.143(3) r.w.s.153B of the Act on 30.12.2008 making an addition towards gross profit @ 5.2% on deficit stock of ` 14,40,071/- which works out to ` 74,881/-. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A).

3.1. Before Ld.CIT(A), the ld.A.R made the following points: i) para iii of page 2 of AO’s letter dated 25.08.2008 has wrongly treated value of ` 7,27,101/- of physical stock of lungies found as 7,27,101/- metres. ii) ` 65,23,544/- is value of sales made and ` 67,32,217/- is cost of yarn acocridng to purchases bills, according to lists (copies filed already) prepared by the department on 27.09.2006, date of search. These have been incorrectly taken by AO as metres, while arriving at book stock. iii) Item 28 of 11,603/- has been included as last item at page 1 and again as first item at page 2 of department’s list of purchase bills. iv) Basis for ` 2,92,540/- treated as opening stock for arriving at book stock has not been given, through requested for.

Addition of 74,884/- made consequent to above mistakes may please be directly to be totally deleted.

Alternately, even granting without conceding that if at all there were unaccounted sales of 14,40,071/- only net profit @ 3.64% thereon should have been assessed and not gross profit @

5.2%.

3.2. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) observed that the ld. Assessing Officer has done the exercise of reconciliation of stock as per books of account and physical verification thereby arriving at the figure of deficit stock at ` 14,40,071/-. According to Ld.CIT(A), the ld.A.R is agains the adoption of gross profit instead of et profit on the deficit stock. Further, Ld.CIT(A) observed that the contions of the ld.A.R is not acceptable as all the expenditure relating to the assessee’s business has already been debited in the P&L A/c and hence gross profit have been arrived at. Therefore, Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the action of ld. Assessing Officer. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us.

authorities.

Now the contention of assessee’s counsel is that the Ld.CIT(A) not adjudicated all the grounds raised before him and also deficit stock was incorrectly arrived at. In our opinion, the figure arrived at by the lower authorities at ` 14,40,071/- after reconciliation of the physical stock figures with that of stock reflected in the books account of the assessee and the AO properly examined the facts of the case and made an estimation of income of assessee at 5.2% of deficit stock, which is very reasonable in that line of business of assessee.

Further, it is to be noted that decision of the Ld.CIT(A) has not to be scrutinized sentence by sentence merely to find out whether all facts have been set out in his order or whether some incidental fact which appears on the record has not been noticed by the Ld.CIT(A) in his order. If the Tribunal, on a fair reading of the order of the Ld.CIT(A), finds that it has taken into account all relevant material and has not taken into account any irrelevant material in basing his conclusions, the decision of the Ld.CIT(A) is not liable to be interfered with, unless, of course, the conclusions arrived at by the Ld.CIT(A) are perverse.

It is not necessary for the Ld.CIT(A) to state in his order specifically or in express words that he has taken into account the cumulative effect of the circumstances or has considered the totality of the facts, as if that were a magic formula; if the order of the Ld.CIT(A) shows that he has, in fact, done so, there is no reason to interfere with the decision of the Ld.CIT(A).

by the assessee is rejected. 7. In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on 02nd February, 2017 at Chennai.