TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 1277X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ars found during the course of survey. Hence separate addition made by the assessing officer was deleted by CIT(A). We have gone through the above findings of ld CIT(A) and noted that there is no infirmity in the order passed by CIT(A). The conclusions arrived at by the CIT(A) are, therefore, correct and admit no interference by us. We, approve and confirm the order of the CIT(A) and dismiss the ground nos. 1 and 2 raised by the Revenue. Addition on account of cash deposited during the demonetization period - assessee did not explain the source of cash deposited - HELD THAT:- It is not a case where turnover outside the books of accounts was detected. The plea of the assessee could have been accepted in the later case and not in the former case as the assessee has deposited the entire cash in the bank account. Therefore, the alternative plea of the assessee was rejected. In view of the above facts, the ld CIT(A) observed that the addition on cash deposit sustained is Rs. 61,80,827/- by the cash in hand of Rs. 26,47,736/-. The net addition sustained was at Rs. 35,33,091/-. The assessee got relief of Rs. 6,76,66,909/- (6,23,35,144 + 26,29,991+26,47,736). CIT(A) directed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... suppressed turnover of jewellery which is about 0.87% above the average net profit of 1.63% would meet the ends of justice. Similarly, for bullion the assessee has the separate record of only A.Y 2014-15 and 2015-16 where the average net profit is a loss. In absence of the separate details for bullion for all the proceeding assessment years, the prevalent market rate of 0.2% on sale on bullion would be the appropriate net profit rate. Accordingly, ld CIT(A) directed the assessing officer to estimate the net profit at the rate of 2.5% on the suppressed sale of jewellery and 0.2% on suppressed sale of bullion. This way, ld CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee for all these 3 assessment years partly. We do not find any infirmity in the above conclusion reached by ld CIT(A). That being so, we decline to interfere with the order of Id. CIT(A) in deleting the aforesaid additions. His order on this addition is, therefore, upheld and the grounds of appeal of the Revenue are dismissed. - SHRI PAWAN SINGH, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, HON'BLE ACCOUNTNAT MEMBER For the Appellant : Shri Kiran K. Shah, CA For the Respondent : Shri Ashok B. Koli, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed stock as business income instead to treat the same as undisclosed investment. (b) Summarized and Concise ground of appeals for ITA No. 30/SRT/2022, AY. 2017-18(assessee s appeal) are as follows: (i) Ground No. 1: Not pressed by the assessee. (ii) Ground No. 2: CIT(A) erred in assuming addition on account of excess stock found during the survey proceedings to the extent of Rs. 4,67,19,066/- as discussed in para 6.3.1 and 6.3.2 of the appeal order. (c) Summarized and Concise ground of appeals for ITA No. 312/SRT/2022 for AY. 2015-16 (Revenue s appeal) is as follows: (i) Ground No. 1 2: The CIT(A) erred in restricting the addition of Rs. 3,22,83,495/- made on account of undisclosed turnover to the extent of Rs. 1,44,08,782/- by estimating the net profit @ 0.2% on sale of bullion and 2.5% on sale of jewellery by not considering the facts that the director of assessee company himself admitted that two sets of books of accounts are being maintained which were stated in hard disc in computer and the assessee company itself also admitted that it has not disclosed the turnover to the extent of Rs. 53.62 crores. (ii) Ground No. 3: CIT(A) erred in arriving at estimatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2018, declaring total income of Rs. 5,67,49,440/-. The assessee`s case was selected for scrutiny assessment, accordingly a notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 16.08.2018 which was duly served on to the assessee. Further, notices u/s 142(1) of the Act were issued from time to time calling for various details. In response to the notices issued, the assessee has filed details before the Assessing Officer. The assessee-company is engaged in the business activity of trading in jewellery / gold bars. In this case a survey proceedings u/s 133A of the Act was carried out by the DDIT (Inv.)-1, Surat on 01/02/2017. During the survey action evidences in respect of excess stock, cash deposits during demonetization period, two different sets of accounts in the computer, shortage of cash etc. were found and impounded. During the course of survey action a hard disc (a data make) of 500 GB capacity containing books of accounts was also found and impounded. The Director of the M/s Dagina Jewellers (I) Pvt Ltd, Shri Ramesh Ganna in his sworn statement recorded on 03.02.2017 confirmed the ownership of this hard disc and admitted in reply to question 6 18 of the statement that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat is why, it shows incorrect turnover and stock. Secondly, there is likely to be sale on jangad which might have been returned later on. So the gross sale of Rs. 120.01/- crores is not acceptable. Without prejudice to the above and in alternative It is submitted that, as per the above records and the turnover of two months, the aggregate turnover comes to Rs. 133.99/- crores as under. Turnover upto 03.02.2017 on the date of survey 120.01 crores Turnover from 04.02.201 7 to 31.03.2017 13. 98 crores 133.99 crores Less : Turnover as per accounts 76.91 crores Difference in turnover 57.08 crores At present, it is difficult to bifurcate the turnover in the form of gold bar and in the form of gold jewellery. The margin of profit in the case of gold bar is too low. Considering that the average percentage of profit is assumed at 5% and in that case, profit comes to Rs. 2,85,40,000/-. The assessee has disclosed Rs. 5/- crores in PMGKY and Rs. 5/- crores as other income in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y impounded. In this connection show cause notice was issued to the assessee on 17.10.2019 and asked as to why the difference of Rs. 43,10,67,877/- and sales made in the month of February and March 2017, should not be considered as suppressed Sale and G.P. thereon should not be added to the total income of the company. On perusal of reply vide letter dated 24.12.2019 of the assessee in response to this specific query, it was found that the explanation filed of the assessee was not valid and not acceptable. On perusal of contention of the assessee, it was noticed that the assessee had admitted that it has not disclosed the turnover to the extent of Rs. 57.08 Crores and the assessee had disclosed Rs. 5.0 Crores against excess stock found during the survey proceeding. Also, the disclosure of Rs. 5.0 Crores made under PMGKY was in respect of Cash deposited during the demonetization period. Therefore, both the disclosure were made by the assessee against specific discrepancies noted during the survey proceedings, set off of the same therefore cannot be allowed against profit earned on undisclosed turnover. Therefore, a sum of Rs. 2,85,00,000/- being 5% of gross profit on undisclosed sal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmitted that when the entire unaccounted income found during the search was offered as a part of the overall disclosure, the same cannot be added in the total income as undisclosed investment. It is required to be noted that the learned Tribunal has rightly observed that much negative balance was made on unaccounted income and when necessary entries were made in the books of account, it is bound to result in negative cash balance. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Tribunal, Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly when the entire unaccounted income, which was found during the search, was offered as part of overall disclosure, learned Tribunal has rightly held that the assessee shall be entitled to the benefit of telescoping of negative cash balance against the disclosure made. Under the circumstances, the learned Tribunal has rightly allowed the assessee the benefit of telescoping the original disclosure made against the negative balance in the books of accounts. No substantial question of law arises. Under the circumstances, present TAX Appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. 14. Du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Crore was deleted by ld CIT(A). We have gone through the above findings of ld CIT(A) and noted that there is no infirmity in the order passed by ld CIT(A). The conclusions arrived at by the CIT(A) are, therefore, correct and admit no interference by us. We, approve and confirm the order of the CIT(A) and dismiss the ground nos. 1 and 2 raised by the Revenue in ITA No. 51/SRT/2022 for AY. 2017-18. 16. Now, we shall take ground No. 3 raised by the Revenue in ITA No. 51/SRT/2022 for AY. 2017-18, reads as follows: (ii) Ground No. 3: The Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the addition of Rs. 7,12,00,000/- on account of cash deposited during the demonetization period to Rs. 35,33,091/- without considering the fact that assessee did not explain the source of cash deposited. 17. Brief facts qua ground No. 3 are that during the demonetization period, the assessee is found to have deposited cash aggregating to Rs. 12,12,00,000/- in the bank with Oriental Bank of Commerce A/c No. 01024011000520. The details of the cash deposits are as under: DATE Cash amount deposited in Rs. Total amount in a day in Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er-alia other details field. 30.2 A careful glance reveals that these are several Cash Sales entries, though entered on 09.11.2016, their voucher dates are entered as 20.10.2016 and 21.10.2016 (reference invited to pages 40 to 54 of Annexure BF-10) 30.3 Attention is invited to Page 47-48 (copies pasted below), wherein Cash Sales bills which were entered on 11th 13th November 2016, whereas the Cash voucher dates are given 28 to 30 October 2016 8th Nov. 2016 (1 voucher). It is interesting to note the time of entry captured by the computer systems. 30.4 As can be seen, the Computer system generates time stamp in 24.00 hour format (No AM/PM stamp is there). As many as 25 entries were done past midnight of 12th Nov/ 13th Nov 2016, i.e. in the night/early morning from 00.18 hrs to 01.48 hrs. This clearly means; these entries are not real time entries done at the time of transactions, but done later past midnight when the shop was closed to allow manipulation/fabrication at the convenience of the Assessee. 30.5 It is pertinent to point out that as per the Performa the Action field clearly indicates the action taken as 'Entered' or 'Modified'. In all suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the date of bill entered in the computer are different. Your Goodself has presumed that the bill is raised in the dates of earlier period after the demonetization period. It is strongly submitted that, during the diwali time, the shops remains open till late night and the due to inadequate staff, the manual bills were raised and later on, they were entered into the computer after the diwali vacation. It is for this reason, that the date of bill is different than the date of data entry in the computer. 19. The assessee has also filed submission before the Assessing Officer about the issue on cash deposit, vide letter dated 18.12.2019 filed on 26.12.2019, which is reproduced as under: Regarding cash deposit during demonetization period - It is submitted that assessee had deposited Rs. 12.12/- crores during the demonetization period and to that extent it had reduced the quantity in the books of accounts. In order to avoid litigation, the assessee had disclosed Rs. 5/- crores additional income during the year. So far as the balance amount of Rs. 7.12/- crores are concerned, they are out of cash on hand on account of sales, collection of debtors, the earlier balance of ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2,264 12,12,00,000 20. However, the assessing officer observed that as evidenced by the digital analysis of the data found and impounded, which is duly discussed in detail in the show cause notice dated 18.10.2019, the director of the assessee- company Shri Ramesh Ganna could not adduce proper explanation at the time of survey in respect of anomalies as pointed out relating to difference in the date of bills vis a vis system date as per computer data of those cash bills. The assessee did not file any explanation on the matter even in the post survey proceedings before DDIT(Inv)-1, Surat. Following the law of natural justice, the assessee was once again given an opportunity by assessing officer to forward its explanation in the matter, vide notice u/s 142(1) dated 18.10.2019. The assessing officer observed that despite sufficient time allowed to the assessee, the abnormally high sales in cash during demonetization could not be properly explained by the assessee. In fact due to this intrinsic weakness relating to supporting evidences, the assessee itself chose to disclose a sum of Rs. 5.0 Cro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,144 +26,29,991+26,47,736). The Ld CIT(A) also directed the assessing officer to tax the balance amount of Rs. 35,33,091/- (7,12,00,000- Rs. 6,76,66,909) u/s 68 of the Act. The ld CIT(A) was of the view that balance amount of Rs. 35,33,091/- is not generated not from actual sale of jewellery or bullion, therefore, ld CIT(A) directed the assessing officer to tax the amount of Rs. 35,33,091/- as per the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. 22. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. 23. Learned DR for the Revenue argued that during the demonetization period, the assessee was found to have deposited cash aggregating to Rs. 12,12,00,000/- in the bank with Oriental Bank of Commerce A/c No. 01024011000520 on various dates. The assessee claims to have made these cash deposits sourced from the cash sales made prior to demonetization period. In the survey proceedings, it was found that there was huge irregularity and as per the computer records, the bills were prepared not on the date of sales but on much later dates. The assessee was asked to file its submission to explain the discrepancies noted vide notice dated 17.10.2019 and the assessee was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ged that the receipt and accumulation of cash on hand as per the books of accounts is quite normal and the same ought to be accepted more particularly when books of accounts are not rejected by the assessing officer. The AR submitted that the demonetization started from 12 pm at midnight on 08.11.2016 and it was announced on TV around 9 pm and thereafter there was mad rash to buy gold ornaments /gold bars which went on till 12 pm on 08.11.2016. Further, it was urged that, prior to 08.11.2016, there was Diwali period which is busy season for the jewelers and during the said period they have highest turnover and hence, it was pleaded that there was huge turnover even prior to 08.11.2016. 25. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record and duly considered facts of the case in the light of the applicable legal position. Though facts have been discussed in detail in the foregoing paragraphs, however in the succinct manner, the relevant facts and background are reiterated in order to appreciate the controversy and the issue for adjudication. According to the assessing officer, during the course of survey at business premises, it was found that there was mismatc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of turnover Amount No mismatch (Entry of sale on same day) 6,23,35,144 One day difference (Sale of Day 1 entered on Day 2) 26,29,991 Mismatch with difference more than one day (Difference from 2 days to 15 days) 5,61,80,827 Total 12,11,45,962 27. The assessee argued before ld CIT(A) that the mismatch of turnover as per the above table is Rs. 5,61,80,827/- and as the assessee had already disclosed for Rs. 5 Crores in the PMGKY scheme, at the most the balance amount of Rs. 61,80,827/- could be taken as the actual bogus sales. These aspects should have been considered by the assessing officer instead of treating all the cash deposits as unexplained. 28. Before the ld CIT(A), the assessee also raised the issue about the nonconsideration of cash in hand by the assessing officer. The assessee submitted before ld CIT(A) that the cash in hand available as on 14.10.2016 amounting to Rs. 26,47,736/- was not given credit to while taxing the amount of deposits in the bank account. The assessee submitte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng officer to tax the said amount of Rs. 35,33,091/- (7,12,00,000- Rs. 6,76,66,909) u/s 68 of the Act as same was generated not from actual sale of jewellery or bullion, therefore, ld CIT(A) held the claim of sale as bogus as evidenced from entries in computer. Accordingly, the ld CIT(A) directed the assessing officer to tax the amount of Rs. 35,33,091/- as per the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. We do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A), hence ground No. 3 of Revenue is dismissed. 31. Ground No. 4 raised by the Revenue, in ITA No. 51/SRT/2022, is reproduced below: Ground No. 4: The CIT(A) erred in directing to tax the investment in undisclosed stock as business income instead to treat the same as undisclosed investment. 32. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that this is the excess stock found during the course of survey proceeding. Such excess stock relates to business only, therefore it should not be taxed under section 115BBE of the Act, under the head income from other sources. The ld Counsel submitted that an amount of Rs. 35,33,091/-, as the addition sustained by ld CIT(A), should be treated unaccounted business sales therefore addit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Revenue is dismissed. 37. Summarized and Concise ground of appeals for ITA No. 30/SRT/2022, AY. 2017-18 (Assessee Appeal) are as follows: (i) Ground No. 1: The learned CIT(A) grossly in not deleting addition on account of cash deposit to the extent of Rs. 35,33,091/- as discussed in para 6 of the appeal order. (ii) Ground No. 2: CIT(A) erred in assuming addition on account of excess stock found during the survey proceedings to the extent of Rs. 4,67,19,066/- as discussed in para 6.3.1 and 6.3.2 of the appeal order. 38. Ground No. 1: During the course of hearing, ld Counsel for the assessee informs the Bench that assessee does not wish to press ground No. 1 in ITA No. 30/SRT/2022, for AY. 2017-18, therefore we dismiss ground No. 1 as not pressed. 39. Succinct facts qua ground No. 2 in ITA No. 30/SRT/2022, AY. 2017-18 are that this ground relates to quantification of excess stock of Rs. 10,00,90,951/- and giving credit to Rs. 500,00,000/-, disclosed during the course of survey and subsequently in the return filed. The contention of the assessee before ld CIT(A) was that as per the show cause notice of the assessing officer, the excess stock was Rs. 9,90,17,141/-, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the book stock. It was further submitted that the purchase bills amounting to Rs. 59,95,826/- were found during the course of survey and were impounded by the authorized office. There were another set of bills, which were not received as on the date of survey and were received subsequently, for which the payments have been made by account payee cheques. These details especially of second set of bills were submitted by the assessee during appellate proceedings were remanded to the assessing officer for verification. However, assessing officer has not commented about these purchases in the remand report. As far as the first set of bills (worth Rs. 59,95,826) were found during the course of survey and as such should have been considered by the assessing officer. As regards the second set of bills (worth Rs. 46,22,819/-) which were not found during the course of survey but the bills are all dated prior to the date of survey and even the stock was claimed to have been received prior to the date of survey. These aspects need to be verified by the assessing officer, as assessing officer has not commented about it in the remand report. Therefore, ld CIT(A) directed the assessing officer th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the survey proceedings but remain to be accounted in the books of account. So purchase goods were received and taken in the inventory but not in the working of stock as per accounts. 2) In the inventory, some stocks were found on the date of survey which belongs to the customers who had given for repairing. 3) If these issues are considered, then no additions of excess stocks are made. 42. Therefore, with help of the above reconciliation, ld Counsel submitted that total addition of Rs. 4,13,92,108/- was made by the assessing officer again during the reassessment proceedings, which amounts to double addition. The survey was conducted in the assessment year 2017-18 wherein the assessee has offered suomoto in PMGKY scheme of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- on account of excess stock/cash sales for the previous assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17. Once the assessee has offered in PMGKY scheme of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- for these previous assessment years, the assessing officer ought not to have reassessed and estimate the income of the assessee again in reassessment proceedings. In the scrutiny assessment the turnover of the assessee and related income were already taxed, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee has offered Rs. 10,00,00,000/- suo-moto and paid the taxes. Considering the huge turnover of jewellery, repairing work cannot be ruled out. While selling the jewellery, the assessee provided the guarantee to the customers for manufacturing defects. Therefore the difference of 53,26,958/- is on account of jewellery came to the assessee from their customers for repairing, hence such difference is hereby deleted. 48. The assessee`s main job is to trade in jewellery and to do repairing work of customers` jewellery, hence the difference of Rs. 53,26,958/- is hereby deleted. 49. Since we have granted the telescoping of these previous assessment years viz: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 therefore, assessee`s following additions are (appeal-wise) deleted: A.Y. 2013-14 23,37,604 A.Y. 2014-15 1,19,52,077 A.Y.2015-16 1,44,08,782 A.Y. 2016-17 1,26,93,645 50. Therefore, following summarized and Concise grounds for assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17, are allowed. Summarized and Concise ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fit on unrecorded turnover Total assessed income 2014-15 Rs. 65,71,990 Rs. 2,68,07,847 Rs. 3,33,79,837 2015-16 Rs. 62,54,740 Rs. 3,22,83,495 Rs. 3,85,38,235 2016-17 Rs. 50,19,730 Rs. 2,73,05,521 Rs. 3,23,25,251 55. The Revenue is in appeal before us that addition made by assessing officer at Rs. 3,22,83,495/- was restricted by ld CIT(A) to Rs. 1,44,08,782/-. The table showing profit restricted by ld CIT(A) for the above assessment years, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 are reproduced below: A.Y Profit to be sustained on jewellery at 2.5% of the suppressed turnover Profit to be sustained on bullion at 0.2% of the suppressed turnover Total addition to be confirmed Relief granted to the assessee 2014-15 Rs. 1,18,25,829/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 39,65,74,788/-. Thus, the gross sales were suppressed to the tune of Rs. 54,61,10,487/-. The said suppressed turnover consisted of bullion turnover of Rs. 4,17,00,785/- and jewellery turnover of Rs. 50,44,09,702/-. Suppressed gross sales as per the trial balance found recorded in hard disc during the course of survey and the return of income for the different assessment years are summarized as under: Assessment years Gross sales as per the trial balance found recorded in the hard disc Gross sales as per the ROI filed by the assessee Difference amount 2014-15 Rs. 82,88,17,902/- Rs. 29,26,55,967/- Rs. 53,61,56,935/- 2015-16 Rs. 93,56,06,771/- Rs. 28,99,36,868/- Rs. 64,56,69,903/- 2016-17 Rs. 94,26,85,225/- Rs. 39,65,74,738/- Rs. 54,61,10,487/- 57. From the above chart, it can be seen that assessee had disclosed its gross turnover le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a 9 to 11 of the assessment order. 2) The learned ACIT grossly erred in not giving telescopic effect of the profit so estimate against income disclosed under the PMGKY scheme for Rs. 5/- crores. 1.1 Estimate of margin of profit The learned ACIT made huge estimate of profit at 5% on unaccounted turnover of bullion and gold ornaments. The unaccounted turnover was as under: Bullion 6,31,23,785 Jewellery 47,26,95,502 Total 53,61,56,935 1.2 Margin of profit on trading of bullion is too thin The assessee strongly urges that the plea of the assessee to assume minor margin of profit say 0.10% on bullion was not accepted. The assessee strongly urges that, in the case of bullion, the margin of profit is very thin and, therefore, there is no reason to make addition at the rate of 5% on unaccounted turnover. 1.3 Margin of profit on jewellery The assessee further urges that, margin of profit on jewellery on 2.03% in the year under consideration was a combined margin of profit and, therefore, the same ought to be applied for estimate of profit on sale ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee strongly urges that the undisclosed profit was lying in the form of cash and the same was deposited in the bank due to demonetization of currency. The assessee therefore, urges that the credit to the extent of Rs. 5/- crores ought to be given against undisclosed profit on unaccounted turnover for the post survey period and the subsequent years. 1.7 The assessee strongly urges that, the unaccounted turnover was found in the survey proceedings carried out on 03.02.2017 for the period from F.Y 2012-13 to 2016-17 and ion that survey proceedings, the assessee had disclosed Rs. 5/- crores against cash deposit in the demonetization period. The assessee therefore, urges that there is nexus of income disclosed for Rs. 5/- crores and the unaccounted turnover of the business. The assessee urges that deposit of cash in the bank account was application of income but the source was profit on accounted turnover. The assessee therefore, urges that taxing both the source of income and the application of income amounts to double taxation. 1.8 The assessee urges that, during the survey proceedings so far as application of income is concerned, two things were found viz., unexplained cash ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before ld CIT(A) for 3 preceding years for each of the impugned assessment years in bullion trading (from A.Y 2014-15) and jewellery separately which is as under: Table for A.Y 2014-15 A.Y Percentage net profit as per accounts for bullion trading Percentage net profit as per accounts for jewellery 2011-12 N.A. 2.91 2012-13 N.A. 1.92 2013-14 N.A. 0.41 Average for three years 1.75 Table for A.Y 2015-16 A.Y Percentage net profit as per accounts for bullion trading Percentage net profit as per accounts for jewellery 2012-13 N.A. 1.92 2013-14 N.A. 0.41 2014-15 -0.43 2.38 Average for three years 1. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 1,50,693/- Rs. 1,44,08,782/- Rs. 1,78,74,713/- 2016-17 Rs. 1,26,10,243/- Rs. 83,042/- Rs. 1,26,93,645/- Rs. 1,46,11,876/- This way, ld CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee for all these 3 assessment years partly. We do not find any infirmity in the above conclusion reached by ld CIT(A). That being so, we decline to interfere with the order of Id. CIT(A) in deleting the aforesaid additions. His order on this addition is, therefore, upheld and the grounds of appeal of the Revenue are dismissed. 66. In the result, grounds Nos. 1 to 4 raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 67. In the combined result, appeals filed by the Assessee in (i) ITA No. 303/SRT/2022 for AY. 2013-14, (ii) ITA No. 304/SRT/2022 for AY. 2014-15, (iii) ITA No. 305/SRT/2022 for AY. 2015-16 and (iv) ITA No. 306/SRT/2022 for AY. 2016-17 and (v) ITA No. 30/SRT/2022 for A.Y. 2017-18 are allowed, whereas appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No. 312/SRT/2022 for A.Y. 2015-16 and ITA No. 51/SRT/2022 for A.Y. 2017-18 are dismissed. Registry is directed to place one copy of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
