Girish Agrawal ORDER
Sonjoy Sarma, Member (J)
1. This appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A) - Burdwan dated 11.03.2019 arising out of assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act relevant to assessment year 2011-12. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:
"i. For that estimation and confirmation of higher G.P. on unaccounted sales by the appellate authority is baseless and on surmise since appellant actual audited G.P. rate is lower.
ii. For that ld. appellate authority failed to appreciate the fact that the said higher estimation of GP by AO has been done without rejecting the books of accounts. Hence, it is grossly incorrect.
iii. For that confirmation of addition on excess stock is unjust and bad in law since the said amount is the business income of the appellant. Hence only the audited G.P. rate is applicable on said amount.
iv. For that since the excess stock found on survey is the part and parcel of the identical goods manufactured by the appellant and since it is separately identifiable, therefore such excess stock is the business income of the appellant.
v. For that there has been no tax evasion by the appellant on excess stock found in survey as the appellant paid huge advance tax of Rs. 36,99,000/-.
vi. For that confirmation of the TDS addition on freight charges is unjust and incorrect since there has been no written agreement with the transporter and appellant is not the transport contractor.
vii. For that appellant may modify the grounds."
2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in rice bran (solvent) and rice bran oil refinery. A survey was conducted u/s. 133A of the Act in the case of assessee on 27.01.2011. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny. Accordingly, notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued upon the assessee and in response to such notice, the ld. AR of the assessee appeared time to time before the ld. AO. During search operation, the books of accounts of the assessee were impounded and explanation of these impounded books it reveals that some books of accounts were not explained and certain transactions were not reflected in the books of accounts. The ld. AO while examining the various documents and other transactions connected to the said survey proceedings and after due consideration of the submission of the assessee and examining the necessary documents as well as books of accounts, the additions were made under various heads.
3. Aggrieved by the above order passed by the ld. AO, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) but the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed. The ld. CIT(A) in his order observed that the addition made by the ld. AO on account of excess stock of Rs. 53,94,245/- has been justified under the provisions of law and sustained the addition of Rs. 53,94,245/- in the hands of assessee. He further sustained the addition of Rs. 4,30,000/- on account of non deduction of TDS on freight charges.
4. Dissatisfied with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal against confirmation of addition of Rs. 53,94,245/- and Rs. 4,30,000/- respectively by the ld. CIT(A).
5. At the time of hearing, ld. AR submitted before us that the ld. CIT(A) in his order accepted the fact that alleged excess stock as income from the business. Therefore, the addition made by the authorities below on account of excess stock should be restricted only to the profit element in the stock and prayed that addition should be made @ 12% on alleged amount. On the other hand, ld. DR submitted before us stating that the assessee has miserably failed furnish any details during the course of assessment proceedings and even assessee did not make any endeavour to file revised trading account by incorporating the excess stock found during the course of survey. In such a situation, the claim of the assessee is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
6. We have heard rival submission/contention of the parties on this i........