TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1966X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n purchases of ₹ 5,00,000/- or more is concerned, when it is undisputed case of the assessee that the sale of gold in question was made on 03.05.2011 and sold on 05.05.2011, the provisions for mentioning PAN which came into effect w.e.f. 01.07.2011 are not attracted. Ld. CIT (A) in para 4.3(b) at page 18 has himself recorded that, Interestingly and coincidentally, in our case, the appellant has undertaken these transactions just before that . CIT(A) despite being satisfied that the provisions are not applicable in case of the assessee but proceeded to enhance the income of the assessee to the tune of ₹ 2,24,99,000/- on account of sales in cash of bullion being unexplained in the absence of detail and corroboration. In the face of the fact that books of account duly audited by the auditors have been accepted by the dl. CIT (A) and no adverse inference has been drawn and provisions contained u/s 115BBE are not attracted, the income has been enhanced by ld. CIT (A) apparently on the basis of surmises which is not sustainable in the eyes of law, hence following the decision rendered by Hon ble High Courts and Tribunal in CIT-II vs. Jindal Dyechem Industries Pvt. Ltd. [ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Ld. CIT(A) and his jurisdiction also. 7. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in making the addition of cash sales made by the assessee without rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee. (ii) That such an addition amounts to double taxation in view of the fact that the assessee himself has declared the source of his sales. (iii) That the learned CIT (A) has erred both on facts and in law in drawing adverse inference on account of cash sales, ignoring the fact that there is no bar in making cash sales, in law. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in making the above said addition by indulging in gross conjecture and surmises without bringing any adverse material on record. 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in making the addition arbitrarily rejecting the explanation and evidences filed by the assessee in this regard. 2. Briefly stated the facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy at hand are : Assessing Officer made addition of disallowance under sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... p of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, order passed by ld. Revenue authorities below, arguments advanced by ld. AR for the parties, the sole question arises for determination in this case is :- as to whether cash sales of gold by the assessee is part of the trading transaction and the trader buying the gold would fall u/s 14A(3)? 9. The ld. AR for the assessee contended that enhancement of income by the assessee to the tune of ₹ 2,24,99,000/- is not sustainable because a trader in gold and silver is not barred from making sale of gold and silver in cash nor a trader is required under law to record the names and address of the purchasers to whom the cash sale of gold and silver is made and relied upon the decision rendered by Hon ble Delhi High Court in case cited as CIT-II vs. Jindal Dyechem Industries Pvt. Ltd. 2012 (4) TMI 423 Delhi High Court, the decision rendered by the Hon ble Bombay High Court in R.B. Jessaram Fetehcahnd (Sugar Dept.) vs. CIT, Bombay City-II 1969 (7) TMI 10- Bombay High Court and the decision rendered by the Tribunal in case of Kishore Jeram Bhai Khaniya, Prop. M/s. Poonam Enterprises, Mp-83 vs. ITO ITA No.1220/Del/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... himself offered the amount of cash sales as his income by duly including it in his total sales -once a particular amount is already offered for taxation, it cannot be again considered u/s 68 of the Act - thus, any addition cannot be made by treating cash sales as bogus - Decided in favour of Assessee. 12. When we examine the case of the assessee in the light of the aforesaid decisions rendered by the Hon ble High Court of Delhi in case of CIT-II vs. Jindal Dyechem Industries Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the decision of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in R.B. Jessaram Fetehcahnd (Sugar Dept.) vs. CIT, Bombay City-II (supra) and the decision of the Tribunal in case of Kishore Jeram Bhai Khaniya, Prop. M/s. Poonam Enterprises, Mp-83 vs. ITO (supra), it is apparently clear that the ld. CIT (A) has accepted the trading results and has never rejected the books of account which are duly audited and in para 5.4.2, CIT (A) has categorically mentioned that prima facie there is no dispute as regards recording of transaction in the books of account and quantitative details for the period 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012 includes inward or outward transactions of gold of 10 Kgs. during the year under assessm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
