TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 562X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he addition. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal of the assessee are dismissed. - ITA No.2896/Del/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) - - - Dated:- 21-1-2020 - SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appellant by None Respondent by M/s. Rakhi Vimal, Sr.DR ORDER PER O.P. KANT, AM: This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 23/03/2017 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-33, New Delhi [in short the Ld. CIT(A) ] for assessment year 2012-13, raising following grounds: 1. That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in giving part relief to the assessee and against the addition of ₹ 2,06,03,900/-, the CIT(A) has granted a relief of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gainst the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. That the Appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off. 2. At the outset, we may like to mention that despite notifying the date of hearing, neither anyone appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment application was filed. In view of the facts and circumstances, we were of the opinion that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Accordingly, we head the appeal ex-parte qua the assessee after hearing arguments of the learned Department Representative. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 30/03/2013, declaring total income of ₹ 12,0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wance sustained by the ld. CIT(A). 5. We have heard the submission of the learned Department Representative and perused the relevant material on record. The Assessing Officer has made addition on the basis of the material seized during the course of the search at the premises of M/s Kartika Gold Enterprises. All those documents were duly confronted by the Assessing Officer to the assessee. The finding of the Assessing Officer in respect of the addition of ₹ 64,12,500/- is reproduced as under: 2-2 As per the entries/transactions of ₹ 64,12,500/- as shown on Page No-179 of Annexure - A1/X2 seized from the premises of M/s KGE reflects that M/s KGE has paid ₹ 64,12,500/-to the assessee company on 05.03.12. The AR of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of said cash in the books of accounts. Thus, it is held that the assessee has received cash of ₹ 64,12,500/- against the unaccounted sale of gold and the same is added back with the income of the assessee company. 5.1 Regarding additions of ₹ 9,44,500/- and ₹ 27,78,500/-, the finding of the Assessing Officer are reproduced as under: 2-3 As per the entries/transactions of ₹ 9,44,500/- and ₹ 27,78,500/- as shown in Annexure\ A2/X2 seized from the premises of M/s KGE reflects that M/s KGE has paid ₹ 37,23^000/- to the assessee company on 09.02.12, and 25.01.2012 respectively. The AR of the assessee company was asked to explain whether the cash so reflected in the seized papers as above was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pect of the additions related to receipt of cash amounting to ₹ 27,78,500/- on 25.01.2012, ₹ 9,44,500/- on 09.02.2012 and ₹ 64,12,500/- on 06.03.2012. 5.3 We find that assessee has partly accepted the entries in the documents seized, which confirm that the documents were related to the assessee , but the assessee has failed to explain the balance entries reflected in those documents, and therefore, lower authorities are justified in sustaining the addition in dispute. 5.4 Regarding the addition of ₹ 46,03,600/-, the finding of the Assessing Officer are reproduced as under: 2-6 On perusal of the seized material it is noticed that the Annexure-A3/X2 reflected the transactions in respect of purchase of go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s regular books of accounts. In this context, the appellant has contended that the AO s action of making addition in respect of both cash received -and sales made tantamounts to double additions. 6.3.2.1 I have considered the submissions of the appellant. During the appellate stage, the appellant has categorically submitted that bullion sale takes place only by actual delivery of money at the time of sale. It would therefore be wrong to assume that in respect of sale made on 04.01.2012, the payment would have been received on 25.01.2012. According to the practice in the bullion trade, the appellant was bound to have received payment of ₹ 46,03,600/- on 04.01.2012 itself. In view of the above, I do not find any need to interfere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
