TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 187X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been wrongly inferred by the AO. This explanation was also given before the CIT (A) also as incorporated above. From the perusal of the seized documents reflects that there was a closing balance of gold jewellery 2763.010 gms which are in terms of quantities and the AO has interpreted the same as alleged sales of ₹ 27,63,010. It was specific clarified before the authorities below that the difference between the weight and the value was determined depending upon the purity of the gold as reflected in the working giving in the seized documents. A bare perusal of these documents read with explanation it is quite clear that the value of the quantity of the gold jewellery has been inferred as in terms of value and the sales has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the return of income was filed on 02.08.2006 declaring income of ₹ 91,690/-, showing salary and interest income which was later on revised to ₹ 5,70,690/- on 19.12.2007 which included undisclosed income of ₹ 4,79,000/- from jewellery business. The main issue raised in the present appeal is that the Assessing Officer had made a mistake in construing the weight of the purchases as noted in the seized document to be alleged sales in value by taking figure of ₹ 3,50,93,668/-. It was stated before the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT (A) that the assessee is a Senior Director in M/s. Arora Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. which was engaged in manufacture and sale of gold and silver jewellery. The said company had shown GP rate of 20.45% ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... support of the alleged sales. 7.3 It has also been submitted that as per page 13 of Annexure A-I, the appellant had purchased gold Jewellery weighing 13 gms. besides the opening jewellery weighing 1.382.230 gms. Thus the appellant had closing balance of gold Jewellery weighing 1395.320 gms. The Assessing Officer had, however, erred in assuming that Jewellery weighing 1395.320 represented the alleged sales of gold Jewellery of the value of ₹ 13,95,320 without there being an iota of evidence in support of the alleged sales. Acting on the basis of the said mistakes, the Assessing Officer estimated the sales of the appellant for this year at ₹ 3,50,93,668 as against the sales of ₹ 95,75,449 which had been shown by the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isclosed ₹ 4,79,000/- the net undisclosed profit was worked out at ₹ 12,75,683/-. 4. Before us, ld. counsel for the assessee, Mr. Rajiv Saxena submitted that the entire basis of taking the alleged unrecorded sales is erroneous for the reason that; firstly, the Assessing Officer has taken quantity/weight of the jewellery as value; secondly, the assessee himself has given the working and the calculation of net profit including sale and purchase were worked out from the seized material itself. There is no dispute regarding quantity of purchase and sale. The observation of the Assessing Officer that the assessee has not furnished any explanation is absolutely wrong, because entire details of purchases and sales as recorded in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eized documents. 5. On the other hand, ld. DR strongly relied upon the findings of the Ld. CIT (A). 6. After considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the relevant findings and material referred to before us, at the time of hearing, we find that the only controversy is with regard to the estimation of sales of ₹ 3,50,93,668/- on the basis of certain seized documents which according to assessee is ₹ 95,75,449/- which has been declared by the assessee himself. The calculation made by the assessee is based on the seized material itself which has been declared in the return of income. First of all, we find that the assessee right from the stage of the assessment proceedings has been clarifying that the quantity of pu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
