TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 536X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by Shri Omprakash Sirvi, Shri Kanaram Sirvi and loan from Mahesh Bank - Held that:- ince all the family members are in the same place and have been working in the jewellery and the Girvi business (all of them shown the similar sort of incomes in their returns), it can be presumed the loan funds obtained from Mahesh Bank could have been utilized by assessee. It is also seen that AO has quantified the excess stock or undisclosed income in the course of survey. Therefore, the explanation given by assessee to explain the stock on the date of survey could have been verified by the AO on the date of survey. Therefore, doubting the explanation of assessee of contributions from the family members is not correct. Considering the confirmations filed on record and the fact that the loan was obtained from Mahesh Bank, even though in the name of Shri Kanaram Sirvi, the credit can be given to assessee’s purchase of stock. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that addition made by AO is not warranted.- Decided in favour of assessee Unexpalined investment in the house - assessee explained that he has obtained ₹ 3,50,000/- from his father-in-law, Mr. Ratanlal Panwar and Mr. Sohan from Rajas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s. Shagun Jewellers, Delhi. AO accepted the credit bills from the local purchases but doubted the purchase from M/s. Shagun Jewellers, Delhi. Assessee explained that it is a general trade practice that parties will come and deliver at the business premises and amounts are issued by cheque or DD in the name of those parties. AO enquired from the State Bank and found that the DD taken was paid at Chennai. Since M/s. Shagun Jewellers, Delhi has not received the DD and on enquiry also got a confirmation that they do not have any transaction with assessee, AO disbelieved the purchase of jewellery to an extent of ₹ 8,06,161/-. In addition to the above, AO also enquired about the stock availability on the date of survey. In the explanation given, assessee has claimed certain contributions from the family members to an extent of ₹ 12,23,000/- which AO has not accepted and added as unexplained income . 2.1. In addition to the above two items, AO also enquired investment in the house to an extent of ₹ 12 Lakhs out of which assessee explained loan from SBH, from father-in-law and one Mr. Sohan out of business funds. AO disbelieved loan from father-inlaw and Sohan and br ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ters from other loan creditors which were furnished before the AO. Paper Book also contain Income Tax returns of other family members to submit that all the persons from whom assessee has borrowed funds has creditworthiness which was doubted by the AO. Ld. Counsel also referred to the enquiry as per the SBH, DD purchased in the name of M/s. Shagun Jewellers, Delhi was in fact cleared, as can be seen from the certificate of bank, if not in Delhi but in Chennai. It was his contention that assessee has credit purchases to the tune of ₹ 8,06,161/- and also loans from various persons including from Mahesh Bank to prove the creditworthiness. It was his submission that assessee has furnished necessary evidences in support of the contentions. 5. Ld. DR however, submitted that assessee has furnished a bill in the name of M/s. Shagun Jewellers, Delhi, whereas amount was paid in Chennai. So, the same was disbelieved by the AO. In addition the creditworthiness of various creditors are not proved. He supported the orders of AO and CIT(A). 6. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the documents placed on record including statements of assessee in the course of survey. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... loan. However, AO simply disbelieved assessee s contention that the loan was taken by pledging jewellery items of the family members in the name of Shri Kanaram Sirvi. as he was not in a position to go to the bank due to health reasons. Since all the family members are in the same place and have been working in the jewellery and the Girvi business (all of them shown the similar sort of incomes in their returns), it can be presumed the loan funds obtained from Mahesh Bank could have been utilized by assessee. It is also seen that AO has quantified the excess stock or undisclosed income in the course of survey. Therefore, the explanation given by assessee to explain the stock on the date of survey could have been verified by the AO on the date of survey. Therefore, doubting the explanation of assessee of contributions from the family members is not correct. Considering the confirmations filed on record and the fact that the loan was obtained from Mahesh Bank, even though in the name of Shri Kanaram Sirvi, the credit can be given to assessee s purchase of stock. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that ₹ 12,23,000/- added by AO is not warranted. The ground to that extent is allo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
