TMI Blog2012 (4) TMI 704X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 55/- on this account. (f) erred in holding that there was initial investment made by your appellant and further erred in applying the operating cycle of stock holding at 1.96 days for the purpose of initial investment and consequently erred in working out the unaccounted income at ₹ 6,11,896/- on this account. 2.1 It is submitted by the Ld. A.R. that these grounds are of academic interest because effective addition made is for debtors which is being disputed by the assessee as per ground No.2. Accordingly, ground No.1 is rejected as of academic interest only. 3. grounds No.2 3 are as under: (2) The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that there was unaccounted debtors of ₹ 33,58,118/- which represented the unaccounted income and thereby further erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 23,58,118/- on this account. (3)It is prayed that this addition of ₹ 23,58,1187- as above confirmed by CIT(A) be deleted. 3.1 Brief facts regarding this issue are noted by Ld. CIT(A) in para 3.9 of his order, which is reproduced below:- In the next ground of appeal, the appellant has disputed an action of working out the total debtors at ₹ 38,09,233/-. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate of debit transaction, netting should be allowed and in this manner, net peak debit balance has to be worked out and addition should be restricted to this amount. We, therefore, set aide the order of Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and restore the matter back to the file of the A.O. for a fresh decision. He should pass necessary order as per law as per above discussion after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. These grounds No.2 3 are allowed for statistical purposes. 4. Ground No.4 was not pressed by the Ld. counsel for the assessee and hence, the same is rejected as not pressed. 5. Ground No.5 is as under: (5)The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that various items of gold weighing 698.200 valued at ₹ 3,29,264/- is the unaccounted investment and further erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 3,29,264/-. 5.1 Brief facts regarding his issue till the assessment stage are noted by Ld. CIT(A) in para 5 of his order which is reproduced below: 5. In the next ground of appeal, the appellant has disputed an addition of ₹ 3,29,264/-. This issue has been discussed by the A.O. in para 7 of this order as under:- During the course of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and on this basis, this claim was rejected. He also noted that no evidence has been produced in respect of this claim that some ornaments were belonging to the customers and no receipt book etc. or confirmation of customers was produced. Before Ld. CIT(A) and before us also, no such evidence has been produced in support of this contention. This is also very unnatural claim that personal ornaments belonging to the ladies were lying at the business premises. Under these facts, now, we examine the applicability of judgment cited by the Ld. counsel for the assessee in the case of Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain (supra):- 5.6 From the above judgement of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, it is seen that in that case, jewellery of 1632.8 gms was seized from the residence of the assessee and under these facts, it was held by the Tribunal in that case that as per CBDT Circular No.1916 dated 11.05.1994, having regard to the seize of family, ornaments to the extent specified in the circular should be accepted as reasonable. In the present case, the jewellery was not seized from the residence of the assessee but it was seized from the business premises of the assessee whereas the search was carried ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the case of Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain (supra). This ground is allowed for statistical purposes. 6. Ground No.6 is as under: (6) The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 2,39,028/- made on account of the bank deposits. 6.1 It is submitted by the Ld. A.R. that different peak dates are considered by the A.O. for working out the peak amount lying in various bank accounts. He drawn our attention to page 20 of the assessment order where peak date is noted by the A.O. as 17.12.1994 for account of Gopi Chokshi account with Swami Narayan Cooperative Bank Saving account and peak date 20.12.1994 is considered for account of SK Chokshi in the same bank. It is further submitted that for one RD bank account with Bank of India Recurring Deposit and two RD account with Shree Cooperative Bank, no peak date has been stated by the A.O. It is submitted that same peak date should be considered for all the bank accounts. Ld. D.R. supported the orders of authorities below. 6.2 We have considered rival submissions, perused the material on record and have gone though the orders of authorizes below. We find that this is admitted position of facts that all these five accoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
