Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 2139 - ITAT MUMBAIAddition u/s. 69A - unexplained jewellery - DR while relying upon the order of AO submitted before us that cut and polished diamonds were purchased on credit from M/s Raj International Ltd and were given for re-making of jewellery to Bani Kumar Mondal - HELD THAT:- We find that as far as diamond jewellery of Rs.44,40,906/- is concerned, the assessee had adduced all the relevant evidences before the AO in the form of valuation report of the assessee and Mrs. Kalawati Kothari (wife of the assessee) and the purchase bills of diamonds, remaking bills for conversion of diamonds into jewellery and payment details in support of its acquisition at the time of post search proceedings and even in the assessment proceedings. Whereas the AO has not brought any cogent or convincing material to point out any discrepancies therein. However, it was mere presumption on the part of AO to the effect that as to why the purchases were made on credit just prior to search and paid after the date of search. According to us, the presumption howsoever strong may be cannot take place of proof. Thus, according to the facts of the present case, the assessee has not led any corroborative evidence in order to point out any discrepancies in the documents filed by the assessee. We are also of the view that Section 69A cannot be invoked, just on the basis of presumptions, conjectures and surmises. Even no new facts or contrary judgments have been brought on record before us in order to controvert or rebut the findings so recorded by Ld CIT (A). Therefore, there are no reasons for us to interfere into or deviate from the findings recorded by the Ld. CIT (A). Resultantly, this ground raised by the revenue stands dismissed. Addition u/s. 69A - unexplained money - assessee has accepted in his statement under oath u/s 132(4) that there was no evidence present at the time of search action - CIT(A) deleted addition - HELD THAT:- As considered the entire facts, documents and affidavit filed by Rakesh Kothari that the noting made in his diaries were his personal dealings and none of the family members was involved in his transactions. Shri Rakesh Kothari has already considered all these alleged transactions in his Application filed before the Hon'ble Settlement Commission u/s. 245C(1) - as perused the report and the orders passed by the Settlement Commission, wherein the unaccounted transactions have already been owned up by the him and considered in the additions/offer made in his hands. Therefore in this way, the undisclosed transactions have already been brought to tax by the department. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Common Cause [2017 (1) TMI 1164 - SUPREME COURT] relied upon by the assessee is squarely applicable to the present facts and therefore we are also of the view that mere noting in diaries of a third person cannot be taken as admissible evidence u/s. 34 of the Indian Evidence Act. No new facts or contrary judgments have been brought on record before us in order to controvert or rebut the findings so recorded by CIT (A). Therefore, there are no reasons for us to interfere into or deviate from the findings recorded by the Ld. CIT (A). Hence, we are of the considered view that the findings so recorded by the Ld. CIT (A) are judicious and are well reasoned. Resultantly, this ground raised by the revenue stands dismissed.
|