Shiv Biri Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd., Murshidabad vs. ACIT, Cir.-42, Murshidabad
In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed
ITA 2340/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2022AY 2014-15
Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 2340/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shiv Biri Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Collegepara, Aurangabad Tax, Circle-42, Murshidabad Vs Murshidabad - 742201 [Pan : Aagcs2376E] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Mita Rizvi Revenue By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/09/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21/11/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 24/07/2019, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Passing The Order Appealed Against Sustaining & Confirming The Additions Made In The Assessment Order On Account Of 'Undisclosed Cash & Stock Amounted To Rs. 1,00,35,509/- Without Considering The Facts Of The Case In Proper Perspective. 2. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs.4,00,000/- On Account Of Payment Of Interest On Demand Vat 3. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Sustaining The Additions Of Rs.1,00,35,509/- Under The Head 'Undisclosed Cash & Stock' Land Rs.4,00,000/- Interest On Demand Vat Respectively. 4. That The Appellant Craves Leave To Urge Such Other Ground Or Grounds Before Or At The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal.”
For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Mita RizviFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT D/R
Section 143(2)Section 250
…ount, the same should have been applied and addition should have been made only to the extent of ₹ 17,26,108/-. Reliance was placed on the following case-laws:- CIT vs. Samir Synthetics Mill [2010] 326 ITR 410 (Guj.) CIT vs. Gurubachhan Singh J. Juneja [2008] 302 ITR 63 (Guj.) CIT vs. Hariram Bhambani, Bombay High Court, ITA No. 313 of 2013 9. Per contra the ld. D/R, vehemently argued supporting the orders of the lower authorities and also submitted that the details filed by the assessee in support of his contention that 914 bags were duly recorded in the stock register were never placed before the lower authorit…
