TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 123X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sment of M/s Agrawal Jewellers, the same AO has accepted this version that stock to the extent of 2210.300 gms was sent to the assessee firm, in that case no ‘U’ turn is expected or permitted - as the excess stock of 31.56 gms which was claimed to be a weighing error by the assessee, the value of which is Rs.2139.50 per gram, was treated as unexplained investment resulting into addition of Rs. 66,523/- therefore no infirmity in the stand of the learned CIT(A) - in favour of assessee. Addition on account of sales out of books - Held that:- The true copy of the seized documents on the basis of which the addition was made was duly perused/examined by the learned CIT(A) and ultimately found that the unaccounted sales were only to the tune of Rs. 1,73,765 which resulted into relief of Rs.2,85,416/- out of the total addition of Rs.4,59,181 - partly in favour of assessee. Addition on account of precious stones - Held that:- There is uncontoverted finding in the impugned order that the Jawaharat account was duly maintained on year to year basis and there is substantial stock in comparison to the addition, consequently no infirmity in the impugned order in deleting the addition - agai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income tax assessee having PAN AGXPD 0657P. The learned CIT(A) has summarised the details of such payments/deposits at pages 7 onwards. It is not in dispute that Shri Shailendra Dubey is, in fact, the account holder in the bank. In the statement recorded from the partners of the assessee firm, no question relating to Shri Shailendra Dubey or in respect of his bank account was asked and there is no evidence that either the cheque book or bank account of Shri Shailendra Dubey was seized from the premises of the assessee, rather while recording the statement of Shri Shailendra Dubey, the passbook was taken from him. It seems that the addition has been made merely on the basis of presumption. The learned CIT(A) has duly considered the contents of the affidavits of Shri Dubey along with case laws and other relevant record. The addition u/s 68 of the Act has been made in the hands of the assessee for the amounts which were found credited in the account of another person that too without bringing any positive material on record. The transactions in the bank account of Shri Shailendra Dubey even technically cannot be made to be part of transactions of the assesse and consequent addition u/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was 49475.940 grams is not acceptable because purchase bills were found to the extent of 46563.910 grams only. The excess stock weighing 2943.590 gram valued for Rs. 62,61,728/- was treated as undisclosed income and added to the total income. The appellant case is that gold articles weighing 2210.300 grams were received from dealer M/s Agrawal Jewellers Chowk, Bhopal and gold articles weighing 684.850 gms were received from M/s Kanwal Jewellers. As per the appellant, receipts of such items are also evidenced as per seized Vyapari Register. It may be noted that the main dispute is regarding two items of stocks i.e. stock received from M/s Agrawal Jewellers, Chowk Bazar, Bhopal weighing 2210.300 grams and stock received from M/s Kawal Jewellers weighing 684.850 grams. It is also noticed that during the search proceedings, stock register/Vyapari Register in respect of items sent to other parties and received from other parties was found and seized as per BS-0. This register contains datewise detail of receipt of item as well as issue/sending of items including voucher nos. and bill nos. As per the register, stock weighing 1490.500 grams was issued/send to M/s Kanwal Jewellers of Amrat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .56 grams i.e. this much of stock can treated to be found excess as compared to stock shown in the stock register. The value of such excess stock @ Rs. 2139.50 per gram (average selling rate of the year) is arrived at Rs. 67,523/- and the same is treated as unexplained investment in the hands of the appellant. Therefore, addition to the extent of Rs. 67,523/- is confirmed and the appellant gets relief of Rs. 61,94,605/-. 3.3 If the conclusion drawn in the impugned order, observation made in the assessment order and the assertion made by the learned respective counsel, are kept in juxtaposition and analysed, we find that as per the assessee, the gold articles received from Agrawal Jewellers, as per seized stock register, are 2210.300 grams and gold articles received from Kanwal Jewellers, as per seized stock register, is 684.850 gms which were not accepted by the learned Assessing Officer and the same is the point of dispute before us. The submission of the assessee is that these quantities have been duly reflected in the stock registers. During search proceedings, it was seen that as per stock register as on 25.10.2007, the gold to the extent of 1490.500 gms was issued to M/s Ka ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s were duly recorded wherein it has been mentioned that such stock of gold was sent to the assessee firm. There is uncontroverted finding in the impugned order that in the assessment of M/s Agrawal Jewellers, the same Assessing Officer has accepted this version that stock to the extent of 2210.300 gms was sent to the assessee firm. In this backdrop, no U turn is expected or permitted. Even otherwise, the excess stock of 31.56 gms which was claimed to be a weighing error by the assessee, the value of which is Rs.2139.50 per gram, was treated as unexplained investment resulting into addition of Rs. 66,523/-, therefore, we find no infirmity in the stand of the learned CIT(A). It is affirmed. 4. The next ground pertains to deleting the addition of Rs.2,85,416/-. The crux of arguments on behalf of the assessee is that firstly the explanation of the assessee is not satisfactory and secondly the statement of Shri Shashi Mohan contradicts the claim of the assessee. On the other hand, the ld. Counsel for the assessee defended the impugned order. 4.1 On perusal of record and after hearing the rival submissions, we find that an addition of Rs.4,59,181/- was made by the Assessing Officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... detailed at page 30 of the impugned order. There is uncontoverted finding in the impugned order that the Jawaharat account was duly maintained on year to year basis and there is substantial stock in comparison to the addition, consequently, we find no infirmity in the impugned order and confirm the same. 6. The assessee has also preferred cross objection against sustenance of the addition of Rs. 67,523/- out of the alleged excess stock of gold of Rs.62,61,628/- by the learned CIT(A). Without going into much deliberation and specifically while disposing of the appeal of the Revenue (supra), since the stand of the learned first appellate authority has been affirmed on this issue, therefore, it has remained for academic interest only, consequently, we find no merit in the cross objection of the assessee. It is dismissed. 7. The next ground of cross objection pertains to sustenance of the addition of Rs.1,73,765/- out of the total addition of Rs.4,59,181/-. We find that on this count also, we have affirmed the stand of the learned CIT(A) while disposing of the revneue s appeal, therefore, there is no merit in this ground also. Finally, the appeal of the Revenue as well as the cro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
