TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 1202X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d business, this is proved by various books of account produced before the AO which were original and primary books and not even the after thought of the assessee, which has been acknowledged by the AO.In such a circumstance, we cannot sustain the addition as made by the AO. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. : 2239/Mum/2012, ITA No. : 2240/Mum/2012 And ITA No. : 2238/Mum/2012 - - - Dated:- 5-12-2014 - SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIVEK VARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Petitioner : Shri R N D souza DR For the Respondent ; Smt Vasanti Patel ORDER PER VIVEK VARMA, JM: These appeals have been filed by the department against the order of CIT(A). The three appeals are: Assessee s name Asst. year CIT(A)/Date of Order G V Sons 2007-08 33, Mumbai/23.01.2012 G V Sons 2008-09 33, Mumbai/23.02.2012 G V Zaveri Rajpara 2008-09 33, Mumbai/23.01.2012 2. Since all the three appeals have identical grounds, we are proc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... odation entries from Moxdiam group, but have actually conducted regular business with the group concerns of Moxdiam Group wherein, the assessee group had taken physical delivery of diamonds. The assessee group also submitted supporting bills with delivery note, bank statement and copy of ledger and stock registers. The AO did not consider the documents to be authentic, because as per the statement of Mr. Basant Jain of Moxdiam Group, who had earlier deposed that he and his group entities were providing accommodation entries. The AO, therefore, made the addition of ₹ 16,57,334/- in the current year. 9. The assessee approached the CIT(A), before whom facts were reiterated. Before the CIT(A), it was also submitted that M/s Basant Dia Jewels had transactions with various parties who were genuine, but out of those parties, only two parties, i.e. Combine Diamond and Nami Exports accepted that they had sought accommodation entries from Moxdiam Group. 10. It was stated that the assessee was also one of the constituents, who had done regular business, on physical delivery basis entries of which was duly recorded in the books of account and stock register, as produced before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1341.660 Sales 68.270 Closing stock 1273.390 1341.660 1341.66 3. You will appreciate that if transactions reflecting purchases made from these two parties which were accepted by them as accommodation entry earlier but denied later are purchases the stock position as reflected in the audit report and the one by you as reproduced above should have tallied, which is not the case. Please explain and reconcile the gap. 4. You will also appreciate that if same is not reconcilable then it will not be the case that additions have been made solely based on statement given of Shri Basant Jain in the capacity of proprietor of M/s. Basant Dia Jewels partner of M/s. Moxdiam and hence you are required to explain the difference and reconcile the same. For the same a notice is being issued giving the opportunity on the date mentioned therein. 3.4 In response to the same the appellant has furnished copy of stock details furnished in Form No. 201C, which is annex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oans addition under section 69 as income from undisclosed source cannot be made when the said statement was retracted and details maintained and filed show the purchases .e Circular of CBDT No F.NO.286/2/2003 IT (Inv) dt 10th March 2003 also supports case of appellant on the issue. As it is a fact that no further enquiry to augment the information received could be done and prima facie the stock maintained and reflected in form 201C also supports appellant's stand only. Accordingly, I am convinced that addition on the basis of retraced statement cannot be made till the same is augmented by any discrepancy pointed out either in the books of accounts or transactions itself. It is noted from the assessment order also in para 14 that the stock register and artisans register were produced before the AG., but same were not accepted as evidence on the belief made by the AG. that they can be prepared and maintained by the appellant. Though it can be possible still for want of any further enquiry to bring the discrepancy, addition made only on the basis of statement which incidentally has been retracted also and then not supported by any other evidence is not sustainable and hence is de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved by various books of account produced before the AO which were original and primary books and not even the after thought of the assessee, which has been acknowledged by the AO. 19. In such a circumstance, we cannot sustain the addition as made by the AO. We, therefore, sustain the order of the CIT(A), deleting the addition made, consequentially, the grounds as raised by the department are rejected. 20. In the result, the appeal, as filed by the department is dismissed. ITA 2240/Mum/2012 : Department s Appeal : 21. The following grounds have been raised by the department: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition in respect of unexplained purchase to the tune of ₹ 83,61,135/-. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in giving the above relief without appreciating the fact that the assessee was unable to substantiate his stand with any other evidence other than self serving documents that the purchase to the tune of ₹ 83,61,135/- are genuine. 3. The Appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above be reversed and that of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
