9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 131X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ingwithout appreciating the facts brought on the record by the assessingofficer that the assessee had not been able to explain about thealleged excess stock. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Kanpurhas erred in law and on facts of the case in deleting the addition ofRs.3,49,122/- made by the assessing officer on account of differenceof silver stock found during the course of search proceeding withoutappreciating the facts brought on the record by the assessing officerthat the assessee had admitted this excess stock as unaccounted andhe was ready to pay tax thereon. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Kanpurhas erred in law and on facts of the case in deleting the addition ofRs.51,620/- made by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax (Appeals)-II, Kanpurhas erred in law and on facts of the case in deleting the addition ofRs.1,61,500/- made by the assessing officer on account ofunexplained investment in the property no. 65/2C & 65/2D, GandhiGram, Kanpur without appreciating the facts brought on the recordby the Assessing Officer that on reference, the District ValuationOfficer given his report by determining the investment amount in thesaid property which was not properly shown by the assessee and noobjection was filed by the assessee during the assessmentproceeding whereas he was given the opportunity to offer hisexplanation with regard to the difference in the DVO report and hasdisclosed amount. 7. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Kanpurhas er ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der:- Annexure - 4 Rakesh Kamlesh Date Particular's Amount (dr.) Amount (cr.) Balance 02.05.98 Payment 7000.00 7000.00 0.00 11.05.98 Payment 23890.00 13890.00 Received 17000.00 0.00 13.05.98 Received 13890.00 0.00 15.05.98 Payment 33530.00 24530.00 Received 9000.00 15000.00 16.05.98 Received 9530.00 0.00 19.05.98 Received 15000.00 -10000.00 20.05.98 Received 10000.00 -10000.00 21.05.98 Payment 28770.00 8000.00 22.05.98 Received 10770.00 0.00 26.05.98 Received 8000.00 0.00 27.05.98 Payment 26670.00 16670.00 Received 10000.00 0.00 29.05.98 Rece ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esh Dulare Jwellers Jewel Palace Paswani Jewellers Difference Chart between A - 4 working chart & Submitted A - 4 Balance Sheet on the basis of ledgerised balance of Annexure-4 (Annexure-B) XYZ (Annexure A-4) 55/81, Aloowali Goali, Nayaganj, Kanpur - 208001 Balance Sheet of M/s Jewel Palace on the basis of advance made to JewelPalace as per Annexure - 4. 59/40, Birhana Road, Kanpur - 208001 4. These detailed explanations were sent to the Assessing Officer forremand report, but despite various opportunities afforded to him, noremand report was submitted to the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) examinedthe detailed explanations by way of analyzed ledger and was of the viewthat there is a totaling error in Annexure A-4 to the extent of 1. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1,214/- in the Panchnama prepared at the time ofsearch. Since the Assessing Officer has not filed any remand report, thereis no material on record to substantiate the additions made by him. The ld.CIT(A) accordingly was of the view that the amount of Rs. 22,91,212/- wasavailable with the assessee in the shape of jewellery and the balance cashin hand. He accordingly allowed it on telescopic basis and deleted theaddition. 6. Aggrieved, the Revenue has preferred an appeal before the Tribunal,but has simply placed reliance upon the order of the Assessing Officerwhereas the ld. counsel for the assessee has contended that the ld. CIT(A)has taken note of detailed explanations and entries found in differentdocuments before deleting the addition. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere is no infirmity in the order ofthe ld. CIT(A). Accordingly we confirm the same. 10. Apropos ground No.5, it is noticed that the Assessing Officer hasmade addition of Rs. 59,011/- on account of undisclosed investment inelevation of showroom at Birhana Road, Kanpur. The issue was examinedby the ld. CIT(A) in his order at page 18 and he has taken note that theassessee has already declared investment of Rs. 2,82,989/- towardsrenovation of shop at Birhana Road, Kanpur as against Rs. 3.42 lakhsestimated by the valuation cell. The ld. CIT(A) has noted that thedifference between the investment as declared by the assessee andestimated by the valuation cell is on account of variation in PWD and CPWDrates. The valuation between the two is around ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
