Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (11) TMI 729 - AT - Income TaxAddition on excess stock found at the premises of the assessee during the course of survey - Held that:- The first and the foremost circumstance which is to be considered is the human conduct of the director at the time of survey. 3,000 grams of the gold is not a small quantity which might have not struck to the mind of the director when survey was going on. The learned first appellate authority, while appreciating this aspect has observed that conduct of the director is little unusual when he brought to the notice of jewellery purchased from M/s. Oasis Jewels. It is strange that the director informed one purchase but forgot to inform about other purchases. It is also pertinent to note that all the stocks as well as other details were brought to the notice of director. The employees were present and they were having ample time to recall this transaction. The learned first appellate authority also observed that as per market practice the owner of jewellery shop knew the gold purchase made in the recent past by heart because the purchase in terms of money is quite big. Keeping in mind this background, we have to appreciate the alleged evidence produced by the assessee along with the explanation. The first is the bank statement of Vijaya Bank. This is the statement of the assessee's account. In this bank statement, payments to M/s. Jain Creation through account-payee cheques are available, starting from August 14, August 18, and August 19, these payments were of ₹ 42 lakhs then on August 21st and 23rd, again the assessee paid ₹ 10 lakhs. It is not discernable against which purchases these payments have been given set off. The purchases of the jewellery on August 21, has been alleged to ₹ 35,68,000 but payments of ₹ 42 lakhs were made before August 19. If this amount was to be accounted for purchase of the jewellery then what was the need to make payment of ₹ 10 lakhs more on August 21st and 22nd. Though the confirmation is available at pages 33 given by M/s. Jain Creation do indicate that the gold was sold to the assesse and it was delivered to the assesse on August 21, 2008 but neither the assessee nor M/s. Jain Creation is able to substantiate this stand with any other corroborative evidence. To our mind, this evidence has been brought in picture by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings in an anticipation that certain payments are reflecting in the bank account to M/s. Jain Creation, therefore, an effort should be made that these payments represent purchases of gold bars from M/s. Jain Creation. If it was true story then it would not have slipped from the mind of the director when his statement was recorded. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has rightly observed that while delivering gold at the premises of the assessee, something written on paper must have accompanied, because that would insulate the carrier from any inquiry on the way, if caught by any agency. On an analysis of the evidence available on record, we are of the view that the learned first appellate authority has appreciated the controversy in right perspective and no interference is called for in the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). We do not find any merit in this appeal. It is dismissed. - Decided against assessee.
|