9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Unaccounted turnover and related calculations. 2. Unaccounted debtors and related addition. 3. Unaccounted investment in gold. 4. Addition on account of bank deposits. 5. Charging of interest u/s 158 BFA. Summary: Issue 1: Unaccounted Turnover The appellant challenged the CIT(A)'s confirmation of the unaccounted turnover calculated by the AO at Rs. 8,05,45,451/- and the estimated profit of Rs. 2,73,855/-. However, these grounds were deemed of academic interest as the effective addition pertained to debtors, leading to the rejection of this ground. Issue 2: Unaccounted Debtors The CIT(A) upheld the AO's addition of Rs. 23,58,118/- as unaccounted debtors. The AO had calculated total outstanding debtors at Rs. 38,09,233/- based on seized annexures, reducing Rs. 10,00,000/- disclosed by the assessee. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s directions sketchy and remanded the matter back to the AO for a fresh decision, instructing the AO to consider the peak debit balance of unaccounted transactions. Issue 3: Unaccounted Investment in Gold The CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs. 3,29,264/- for unaccounted gold weighing 698.200 gms found at the business premises. The Tribunal noted the lack of evidence supporting the claim that the gold belonged to family members or customers. The Tribunal remanded the issue back to the AO to verify the total jewellery found and decide the matter in line with the Gujarat High Court's judgment in CIT Vs Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain. Issue 4: Addition on Account of Bank Deposits The CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs. 2,39,028/- for unaccounted bank deposits. The Tribunal noted the AO's use of different peak dates for various accounts and remanded the issue back to the AO. The AO was instructed to consider a common peak date for all accounts and verify if withdrawals from one account were deposited into another before the peak date. Issue 5: Charging of Interest u/s 158 BFA The issue of charging interest u/s 158 BFA was deemed consequential and did not require separate adjudication. Conclusion: The appeal was partly allowed, with several issues remanded back to the AO for fresh consideration and decision.
|
