TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (6) TMI 1230
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....light at around 12.10pm and was found carrying gold bars in excess of 13 kg with him. His statement u/s 132 was recorded wherein he stated that he was carrying twenty pieces of gold bars of 24 carats, weighing 100g each, totaling to 2 kg (2000g) only. Due to the small tax effect, the case was not processed for centralization with Central charge but it was assigned to the jurisdictional AO who issued a notice u/s 142(1) of the Act to the assessee on 3.1.2014. In response to the said notice, the assessee submitted that the return of income filed for the A.Y 2012-13 on 26.7.2012 be treated as a return filed in response to the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act. 3. Subsequently, the assessment was taken up for scrutiny u/s 143(3) of the Act and the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Mr. Meer Ahmed Ali for purchase of 2000g of gold; (ii) Photocopy of the bank statement of Mr. Meer Ahmed Ali; (iii) photo copy of the PAN of Mr. Meer Ahmed Ali; and (iv) certificate issued by Mr. Meer Ahmed Ali, categorically stating that the said gold seized belongs to him. In his statement recorded under oath, he reiterated the submissions made by him in the written submissions. He stated that since he was scared on the day of search, he had given a false statement, but the gold belongs to Mr. Meer Ahmed Ali and also produced confirmation from him. He also produced a copy of the letter in which Mr. Meer Ahmed Ali certified that the gold was given to the assessee for making of gold ornaments for his sons' wedding. 5. The AO, was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the sum of Rs. 56,31,600 as unaccounted income of the assessee and brought it to tax. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (A) who confirmed the order of the AO and the assessee is in second appeal before us, by raising the following grounds of appeal: "i) The order of the AO is contrary to the law, facts and circumstances of the case. ii) The AO ought not to have added an amount of Rs. 56,31,600 as undisclosed income of the assessee u/s 69 of the I.T. Act, iii) The Appellant Commissioner ought not to have confirmed the addition of Rs. 56,31,600 made u/s 69 of the I.T. Act. 6. The learned Counsel for the assessee Shri A. Srinivas, reiterated the submissions made by the assessee before the authorities below an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing substantiated/supported by the documents produced by him. It is stated by the assessee that the ACTPL has also filed the VAT return for the sale of gold and therefore, the sale is proved. However, we find that VAT return only reflect a sale of gold, but does not show the purchase of the gold. Further, the VAT returns for the relevant month of 2012 is filed between 5th June, 2011 to 15th February, 2012, i.e. after the denial of Mohd. Khan Jewellers (P) Ltd of any transaction with the assessee. Therefore, the subsequent statement of the assessee that the gold belongs to Mr. Meer Ahmed Ali and the documents relied upon by him in support of such statements are not reliable. In the decision relied upon by the learned Counsel for the assessee....