TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 1147X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the basis of treating those affidavits as self-serving documents but documents submitted by the persons who were doing business from the same premises were not thoroughly examined and their Income Tax Returns were not considered by the lower authorities, wherein all the details with regard to their income were mentioned and no material was provided, on that basis addition was made and assessee was not allowed to cross-examine whose statements were relied for making addition in the hands of the assessee. In our considered opinion, whatever material or statement had been basis of the addition that should have been made available to the assessee and ought to have given opportunity to cross-examine the person and inspect the document, but i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cases as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ahs erred in making disallowance of ₹ 1,96,677/- in respect of unaccounted purchases. 3. Facts of the case are that a survey u/s.133A of the Act had been conducted in the case of assessee on 19/11/2014 during which the summons u/s.131 of the Act had been issued to the two partners; namely, (i) Ghanshyam Bhogilal Soni Vinod Bhogilal Soni, wherein according to Assessing Officer physical stock position as per books gold and silver jewellery as on 19/11/2014 was found. Silver jewellery of 159.259 Kgs. and gold of jewellery 7921.442 gram was found and physical stock as per as per valuation was 12031.21gram and 217.992Kgs. So, there was valuation di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jewellery or to make jewellery from raw gold as per orders of the customers and the business activities have been carried out at the business premises of the assessee-firm. The Ld.AO did not agree with the contentions of the assessee and stated that during the survey Managing Partner of the firm M/s. Soni Lallubhai Motichand was given a willful and the same amounts to an afterthought statement and other documents were produced by the assessee were considered by the Ld.AO as self-serving and made addition of ₹ 1,38,74,558/- as against the total income at ₹ 9,07,540/- declared by the assessee. 4. Thereafter, assessee preferred first statutory appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) who confirmed the order of the Ld.AO with the reason that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ur charge income is ₹ 3,40,114/- and the register maintained for three persons is at page No.140 and the invoices issued is at page Nos.141 to 143 as well as individual labour charge income is as per page No.144 and past year Financial Year 2010-11 similarly labour charge receipt is as per page No.146 of the paper-book and the invoices issued in past year is as per page No.147 of the paper-book. 6.3. So far as Krushnalal Bhogilal Soni is concerned, labour charges of three parties is at page No.158 and various invoices issued at page Nos.159 to 161 as well as tabular chart in reference to the labour charge income from three parties is at page No.162 of the paper-book. 6.4. So far as Ghanshyam Bhogilal Soni is concerned, wherein i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts and same were duly complied with but books of accounts were not rejected by the Assessing Officer as held in the case of Sayqul Islam vs. ITO (2020) 118 taxmann.com 347 (Gauhati Tribunal) where assessee s turnover exceeded ₹ 1 crore but it failed to get accounts audited under section 44AB, Assessing Officer could make addition to assessee s income on estimation basis under section 44AD only after rejecting books of account and thereafter passing a best judgment assessment order under section 144 and the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the matter of CIT vs. Anand Kumar Deepak Kumar 294 ITR 497 held that it is mandatory for the Assessing Officer to reject the books of accounts before making any addition in such cases. 6.7. The Ld.AR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... details with regard to their income were mentioned and no material was provided, on that basis addition was made and assessee was not allowed to cross-examine whose statements were relied for making addition in the hands of the assessee. In our considered opinion, whatever material or statement had been basis of the addition that should have been made available to the assessee and ought to have given opportunity to cross-examine the person and inspect the document, but in this case, such exercise was not carried out by the Department to the assessee and same amounts to miscarriage of justice. 7. Ld.DR heavily relied on the orders of Ld.AO ld.CIT(A). 8. Since books of accounts were not rejected and no opportunity was provided to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
