TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 527X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e books of account of the assessee i.e. the writ applicant herein. CIT(A) further recorded that even if the version of M/s. Parv Kundan and Diamonds Private Limited as regards the transaction with the writ applicant herein before the DDIT (Investigation), Delhi was to be accepted as true, still it would not make any difference because the purchase has been recorded in the books of account of the writ applicant and payment has been made by the writ applicant through banking channel. CIT(A) came to the conclusion that the said purchase cannot be termed as unaccounted. In view of the aforesaid findings recorded by the CIT(A) and such findings having attained finality as the order of CIT(A) has not been challenged further by the Revenue befo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s petition. 2 The facts giving rise to this writ application may be summarized as under: 3 It appears from the materials on record that the writ applicant is engaged in the business of Gold Jewellary. The writ applicant filed his return of income for the A. Y. 2018-19 on 29 th September 2018 declaring his total income to the tune of ₹ 16,41,430/-. 4 It appears that search was carried out in the case of one Shri Sureshkumar under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act (for short, the Act ). It is the case of the Revenue that one M/s. Parv Kundan and Diamonds Private Limited, in its capacity as the consignor, dispatched a package containing gold jewellary weighing 524.500 grams, through a courier which was to be received by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rv Kundan and Diamonds Private Limited. Addition was made in the hands of M/s. Parv Kundan and Diamonds Private Limited on the basis of such jewellary seized weighing 524.500 gms. resulting into the demand of ₹ 34,99,560/- and penalty under Section 271AAC of the Act. To put it briefly and more succinctly, the argument canvassed on behalf of the Revenue is that the jewellary cannot be released as the addition was made on the basis of such jewellary in the case of consignor i.e. M/s. Parv Kundan and Diamonds Private Limited and a demand of ₹ 87.79 Lakh is outstanding. 9 The aforesaid stance of the Revenue needs to be considered in light of the order passed by the CIT(A) dated 25 th February 2021. We are referring to the order p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... they have provided correct details of the sender and receiver parties of such parcels. So proceedings u/s. 153A of IT Act were initiated in both the cases and during the proceedings u/s.153A the satisfaction was drawn to initiate proceedings u/s.153C of IT Act in the case of assessee also. 12.1 Subsequently in the proceedings an enquiry was also carried out from the sender party through commission issued to DDIT (Inv.), Delhi whereby the sender party namely M/s. Parv Kundan Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. has denied to having any transactions with the assessee. 12.2 On perusal of the statements of the above person and documents submitted by the sender party the AO observed that party has probably failed to produce the form No.402/403 of GST ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut that the provisions of Section 69A are not applicable in the case of appellant. The transactions were business transactions and duly accounted for in the books of accounts, therefore, the pre condition to apply section 69A that those are to be unaccounted transactions does not get satisfy. 12.5 Having considered the facts and submissions it was noticed the purchases was recorded in the books of accounts of the assessee vide GST bill dated 26.10.2017, so there was no case of any unaccounted purchases by assessee, The above party in the statement recorded have denied of any transactions with the assessee. This enquiry finding has not been confronted by the AO in the assessment proceedings. Moreover, the copy of the bill of the aforesa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12.7 In view of the above discussion, the additions made by the AO is not correct more so when the documentary evidences in respect of the transactions were verifiable from the books of the appellant. Thus there was no case made out by the AO about the unexplained investments in the gold jewellery by the appellant. Thus, the protective addition made by the AO does not survive and hence the same is deleted. The ground of appeal is allowed. 10 Thus, the CIT(A) recorded a finding that the writ applicant herein had purchased gold from M/s. Parv Kundan and Diamonds Private Limited vide the bill dated 26th October 2017 and had also made payment through the banking channels. There is a finding of fact recorded by the CIT(A) which has attain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
