9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 155X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Narayanlal, Shri Shankarlal & Shri Premraj Prajapati, partner of the Assessee was recorded u/s. 131 of the Act wherein it was admitted by them that the bags containing different parcels of jewellery items of gold, silver etc. belonged to the business concern. Subsequently, Assessee electronically filed its return of income for A.Y. 08-09 on 22.07.2008, declaring total income of Rs. 5,47,850/-. On perusing the return of income, A.O noticed that the jewellery worth Rs. 50,68,573/- and the cash of Rs. 2,13,495/- that were seized during search action under 132 of the Act has not been offered to tax. The submission of the Assessee that it is engaged in angadia business and the jewellery and cash was accepted from the clients of Jaipur for delivery at Ahmedabad and it belonged to the clients of the firm and not to the Assessee was not found acceptable to the A.O mainly for the reason that the persons to whom the cash and jewellery was stated to have belonged were not produced for verification and thus according to A.O their identity was not established. A.O therefore added the cash and jewellery aggregating to Rs. 52,82,068/- u/s.69A of the Act by considering the Assessee to be its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e addition u/s 69 A of the Income-tax Act Rs. 52,82,068/-. 11. I have found that during the assessment proceeding, around 80 letters(1500 pages) each for jewellery and cash seizure were furnished. Further, original affidavits of parcels/cash /senders/ receivers (70 parties) were furnished during the appellate proceeding. The appellant has done what was possible for him. But the Ld. AO. has not verified any of the evidence either at assessment stage or at remand stage. The appellant explained regarding parcels and. produced the list of parcels sender and receiver. The appellant cannot be expected to have the documentary evidence explaining the source of this jewellery items / cash etc. The appellant was courier and explained through evidences that these parcels belongs to its customers and he received these during the course of its business. The appellant is showing courier charges since last more than ten years. The appellant is registered with the service tax department as a courier and department is also assessing the appellant as a courier. Department is accepting that the appellant as a courier but not as a jewellery dealer or financer. The department itself accepting the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the addition on account of luxury bus expenses to Rs. 3,34,375/-as against addition of Rs. 6,68,750/- 5. On the issue of addition u/s. 69A of Rs. 52,82,068/- before us, ld. D.R. supported the order of A.O. On the other hand, ld. A.R. reiterated the submissions made before A.O and ld. CIT(A) and supported the order of ld.CIT(A). 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find that ld. CIT(A) while deleting the addition has given a finding that during the assessment proceedings, Assessee had filed replies for each of the items of jewellery and cash seized and had also furnished the addresses of the senders of parcel and cash, the original affidavits of the senders were also filed. A.O had not verified any of the evidence either at the assessment stage or the remand stage. Ld. CIT(A) has further given a finding that Assessee was courier and had explained through evidences that the parcel belonged to its customers and the parcels were received during the course of business. Ld. CIT(A) has further given a finding that there was no evidence to show that the Assessee was the owner of the goods. Ld. CIT(A) has further noted that Assessee was mere custod ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to driver salary, food expenses etc which was included under the total vehicle expenditure. He after considering the totality of the facts, deleted 50% of the addition. Before us, Revenue has not brought any material on record to controvert the findings of ld. CIT(A). We therefore find no reason to interfere with the order of ld. CIT(A) and thus this ground of Revenue is dismissed. 11. In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed. C.O No. 183/AHD/2011 for A.Y. 2008-09 12. The grounds raised by the C.O reads as under:- 1.The Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in not adjudicating on the first ground of the appellant raised before the Ld. CIT (A). 1.1 In the facts & circumstances of the case the Id, A.O. has erred in passing order u/s 153B l(b) r.w.s 143(3) of the IT Act 1961.The Ld. AO should pass the order u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3). 1.2 1.2 The order passed by the AO is illegal as the action u/s 132 of the I T Act 1961 of the investigation wing is illegal.The search action was taken u/s 132 when the search material jewellary and cash was already lying under the custody of police thana .No search warrant can be issued in these circumstances. 1.3 1.3 In the facts and circumstances ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Aggrieved by the order of A.O., Assessee carried the matter before ld. CIT(A). CIT(A) who dismissed the ground by noting that the ground was not pressed before ld. CIT(A). Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), Assessee is now in appeal before us.
16. Before us, ld. A.R. has not placed any material on record to controvert the observations of ld. CIT(A) with respect to not pressing the ground before him. In view of the aforesaid facts, we find no reason to interfere with the order of ld. CIT(A) and thus this ground of Assessee is dismissed.
17. Ground no. 2 is with respect to disallowance of luxury bus expenses. We find ground no. 2 raised by Assessee is interconnected with ground no. 2 raised by Revenue in IT(SS)A No. 427/AHD/2011. We while deciding ground no. 2 in Revenue's appeal hereinabove have dismissed the ground of Revenue and therefore for similar reasons stated hereinabove this ground of Assessee is dismissed.
18. In the result, the appeal of Assessee is dismissed
19. In the result both the appeals of Revenue as well as Assessee are dismissed and C.O of Assessee is also dismissed.
Order pronounced in Open Court on 25 - 06 - 2015. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
