TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 576X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing Survey - Held that:- One plea of the assessee that the difference being very minor should be ignored. Another plea of the assessee was that there would be human erred in taking the weight from the weighing machine. These are general explanation and cannot be the basis on which addition can be deleted. It is also do not find the item-wise tally of the stock as per physical verification at the time of survey on the stock as per the stock register of the assessee. It is therefore not possible to come to a conclusion that the difference is only due to incorrect weighing of the items of jewellery. Therefore, confirm the order of CIT(A) in this regard. - Decided against assessee Addition made out of payments of Commission - Held that:- The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the assessee is general in nature and calls for no adjudication. 3. Ground No.2 raised by the assessee reads as follows :- 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of rs.58,598/- u/s 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, made on account of alleged excess cash found during the Survey operations in spite of the fact that the said excess cash was duly explained by late Shri Ramautar Prasad Verma and his son by filing proper cash-flow statements. 4. The assessee is an individual. He carried on business on trading in all kinds of jewellery. There was survey operation u/s 133A of the Act carried out by the Revenue on 07.03.2005. In the course of survey cash amounting to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the claim of the assessee. I accordingly direct the AO to delete the addition made in this regard. 6. Ground No.3 (a) and (b) raised by the assessee read as follows :- 3(a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 1,29,662/- u/s69A of the Act, made on the alleged ground of unexplained jewellery found during Survey, without properly appreciating the reconciliation furnished by the appellant. (b) Without any prejudice to the above ground, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the ground taken up before him as a whole, although in the operative portion of his order, he had actually allowed relief of ₹ 28,338/-. 7. At the time of survey 30404.83 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heard the rival submissions. One plea of the assessee was that the difference being very minor should be ignored. Another plea of the assessee was that there would be human erred in taking the weight from the weighing machine. I am of the view that these are general explanation and cannot be the basis on which addition can be deleted. I also do not find the item-wise tally of the stock as per physical verification at the time of survey on the stock as per the stock register of the assessee. It is therefore not possible to come to a conclusion that the difference is only due to incorrect weighing of the items of jewellery. Therefore, I confirm the order of CIT(A) in this regard. Ground No.3(a) and (b) of the assessee is dismissed. 10. Gro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ). 12. I have heard the rival submissions. In my view one of the prime requirements for allowing deduction on account of commission is that the assessee has to prove the nature of serviced rendered for which commission is paid. The evidence on record in the form of bills raised by Shri Ashok Kr. Gupta and Shri Sunil Verma are placed at pages 22 to 27 of the assessee's paper book. The bills merely refer to commission on sales and making charges for a particular period. The evidences filed by the assesse cannot be accepted by the AO as it is and therefore AO thought it fit to summon the persons to whom the commission was paid. The AO could not succeed to procure the persons of the recipients of the commission. The assessee also did not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
