TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 1187X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In view of above, it appears that the A.O. has made the addition of Rs.20.0 lacs on estimate basis. The CIT (A) has deleted the same on estimate basis and the Tribunal upholds the same - estimation is a question of fact – Decided against the Revenue. Investment in jewellery seized during the search – Held that:- Seized jewellery was claimed by three ladies namely Rupali Rastogi, Smt. Sunita Rastogi; and Smt. Kamni Rastogi. All the ladies belonged to the reputed families and they are married. As per the CBDT Circular discussed in the case of Smt. Pati Devi vs. ITO; [1999 (2) TMI 43 - KARNATAKA High Court], 500gm, jewellery is expected in the possession of a married lady and that much of ornaments cannot be seized. If we go with the CBDT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce on a part of the statement of Shri Surendra Nath Rastogi, partner recorded under section 132 (4) wherein he had stated that whatever was being earned out of undisclosed transactions was being invested by the firm in the shape of undisclosed stock while ignoring the other part of the same statement of Sri Surendra Nath Rastogi in which he categorically stated that the total undisclosed income of the firm was Rs.40.00 lakhs." The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, a partnership firm, during the block period, was engaged in the business of the Sarrafa. On 08.07.1999, a search under section 132 was carried out at the business and residential premises of the partners in which several incriminating documents, cash and ornaments w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not being satisfied, the department has filed the present appeal. With this background, Sri D. D. Chopra, learned counsel for the department has justified the order passed by the A.O. He submits that the ITAT has summarily brushed aside the statement of Sri Surendra Nath Rastogi, the partner, recorded at the time of search under section 132(4) admitting the total undisclosed income of the firm but without appreciating that the statement recorded is a valuable evidence. The addition was made by the A.O. on the basis of the seized documents at the premises of the assessee. It is also a submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal has improperly appraised the evidence in the form of statement of Sri Surendra Nath ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the G.P. rate in the trade of the Saraffa in various cases was accepted by the A.O. @ 15% to 25%. So, the CIT (A) has taken the average G.P. Rate @ 20% on the estimated sale and deleted the addition of Rs.20/- lacs which was endorsed by the Tribunal. Needless to mention that the estimation is a question of fact as per the ratio laid down in the following cases: 1. Commissioner of Customs (Import) vs. Stoneman Marble Industries and Ors., (2011) 2 SCC 758. 2. Vijay Kumar Talwar vs. CIT (2011) 1 SCC 673; 3. New Plaza Restaurant v. ITO 309 ITR 259 H.P., and 4. Sanjay Oil Cake v. C.I.T. 316 ITR 274 Gujarat. In view of above, it appears that the A.O. has made the addition of Rs.20.0 lacs on estimate basis. The CIT (A) has delete ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
