TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 468X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] - in a situation when the jewellery belonged to different family members and it was a customary of owning the jewellery as permitted by the CBDT circular, the addition was deleted - the provisions of CBDT circular are required to be applied especially when the partners are subject to tax independently - In a situation when the unaccounted stock had been taxed by treating as taxed u/s 69B of IT Act, on one hand, and on the other hand the sale value of the stock was also taxed – the correct position ought to be that the difference between the two is required to be taxed in the hands of the assessee - Decided partly in favour of Assessee. - ITA No. 154/Ahd/2011 - - - Dated:- 25-4-2014 - Shri Mukul Kr. Shrawat And ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... members in their respective balance sheets as on 31st March, 2004. It was informed that the balance sheets of those partners have been furnished along with the return filed by them respectively. The assessee has furnished the details of the gold ornaments respectively by the partners as under:- 2.1 Case law relied upon was Radha Kishan Soni Vs. CIT, 197 CTR 34 (Raj). The assessee has also furnished the valuation report of the gold ornaments in respect of six persons. However, the AO was not convinced and taxed an amount of Rs.1,81,643/- as unexplained jewellery on the ground that the description as per the valuation report had not tallied with the ornaments found. The investment was taxed by invoking the provisions of Section 69A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l No.9 in the list of jewellery found during the course of survey consists of eight earrings and the gross weight of 24.801g as a net weight of 16.801g. The AR tried to explain that this jewellery consisted of jewellery belonging to Shobha P. Kumar in whose case the valuation report at serial number 6 shows diamond necklace and earrings that the gross weight of 43.1g and a net weight of 41g and to P.S. Sarvani in whose case at serial number 3, six earrings with the gross weight of 34.8g and net weight of 30g is shown. The contention of the AR is not acceptable because as per the valuation report of jewellery found during the course of survey, the entire net weight of all earrings was only 16.801g whereas in the case of PS Sarvani only six e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per lady as allowed by CBDT, therefore, respectfully following the decision of Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court, we hereby direct that the addition should be deleted. This ground is allowed. 5. Apropos to Ground no.1, the AO had made the addition of Rs.3,38,463/- initially in respect of sale value of the said undisclosed stock vide an order u/s.143(3) dated 28.12.2006 in the following manner: Net profit as per P L as shown in return After considering disallowable Rs.13,25,945/- Less: Sales value already shown by assessee Rs. 3,38,463/- Rs. 9,87,482/- Add: Uncounted stock value u/s.69 B Rs. 2,91,756 Rs.12,79,238 Less: Depreciation as Per Act Rs.11,26,097 Total Income Rs.1,53,141 Add: on account of unexplained investmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. 7. With the aforementioned factual background, we have heard both the sides. After examining both the computations as reproduced above, we are of the view that in a situation when the unaccounted stock had been taxed by treating as taxed u/s.69B of IT Act, on one hand, and on the other hand the sale value of the stock was also taxed to the extent of Rs.3,38,463/- then the correct position ought to be that the difference between the two of Rs.46,707/- (Rs.3,38,463 2,91,750) required to be taxed in the hands of the assessee. We therefore direct that in the impugned assessment order instead of taxing Rs.3,38,463/- an amount of Rs.46,707/- is to be taxed in the hands of the assessee. We direct accordingly. Resultantly, Ground no.1 of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
