{"id":19907,"date":"2021-07-02T13:32:44","date_gmt":"2021-07-02T08:02:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/sayyed-hamid-ali-v-acit-2020-189-dtr-369-205-ttj-453-indore-trib\/"},"modified":"2021-07-02T13:32:44","modified_gmt":"2021-07-02T08:02:44","slug":"sayyed-hamid-ali-v-acit-2020-189-dtr-369-205-ttj-453-indore-trib","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/sayyed-hamid-ali-v-acit-2020-189-dtr-369-205-ttj-453-indore-trib\/","title":{"rendered":"Sayyed Hamid Ali v ACIT ( 2020 189 DTR 369\/ 205 TTJ 453 ( Indore )( Trib)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Allowing the appeal of the asssessee the Tribunal held that no other incriminating material was found during the course of survey relating to unaccounted stock, excess physical stock was calculated by Revenue authority on estimative and presumptive basis. The stock statement prepared by the survey team on the date of survey itself seems to be on a loose wicket since the remarks column mentioning about the weighment of stock in trucks do not correlate with any actual weighment slip and also the alleged unrecorded stock is practical impossible to be stored on the available space with the assessee. Even after the retraction assessee had not retracted the total surrender but he prudently kept separate record of the sales of physical stock which was 250.03 MT whereas the book stock on the date of survey was 85.433 MT. The difference i.e. 165.27 MT is accepted as unrecorded stock which has been offered to tax by the assessee.\u00a0 Therefore hence deleted. <strong>\u00a0<\/strong>Tribunal also deleted\u00a0 the estimation of net profit by the Assessing Officer. \u00a0(AY. 2012 -13 )\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>S. 133A :Power of survey \u2013Excess stock \u2013 Surrender in the course of survey \u2013 Merely on the basis  surrender made in the course of survey addition is held  to be not justified- Estimated addition on net profit was also deleted .  [ S.143 (3)] <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-19907","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-5b5","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19907","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=19907"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19907\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":19908,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19907\/revisions\/19908"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=19907"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=19907"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=19907"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}