Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (2) TMI 545 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - valuation of unexplained sale of gold - Held that:- What is required to be proved by the assessee is that it has included 40950.66 grams of gold at NIL value in the manufactured items of jewellery also. If the assessee is able to show the same to the satisfaction of the AO, in our view, no addition is called for as presumed by the AO. Since this fact requires verification, we are of the view that the same needs to be set aside to the file of the AO. Accordingly we set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) on this issue and restore the same to the file of the AO for the purpose of verifying the contentions of the assessee that the 40950.656 grams of gold, which was shown at NIL value in Sales was included in the manufactured items also at NIL value. If the contentions of the assessee were found to be correct, we direct the AO not to make any addition on account of unaccounted sales. If it is found otherwise, the AO may make appropriate decision in accordance with the law. The assessee is also directed to furnish necessary details to the AO in this regard. Unaccounted purchase of finished goods - Held that:- We notice that the assessing officer has made his own computation on the basis of statement of stock given to the bank and accordingly came to the conclusion that there is unaccounted purchase of finished goods. We notice that the assessing officer did not examine the quantity details of raw materials and finished goods furnished by the assessee by referring the books of accounts. The question of making own estimate, in our view, would arise only if the AO finds faults and deficiencies in the books of account and consequently come to the conclusion that the quantity details furnished by the assessee is not reliable. Before the AO, the assessee has submitted that the stock statement furnished to the bank is a provisional one and the value shown therein was average value. We notice that the AO did not examine the said explanation at all. Thus CIT(A) was justified in coming to the conclusion that the AO has computed the value of undisclosed purchases on surmises and conjectures and justified in deleting the impugned addition relating to undisclosed purchases and accordingly we uphold the same.
|