2020 (9) TMI 187 - AT - Income Tax

Estimation of sales - Seizure activities - 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 - addition by taking 5% net profit on such alleged sales - HELD THAT - We find that the assessee right from the stage of the assessment proceedings has been clarifying that the quantity of purchase and sale mentioned in the seized documents has duly been disclosed in the working of purchase and sale of jewellery and the figures are not in terms of value. Prima facie the figures of weight/quantity has 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 estimated on the basis of values instead of working given by the assessee in terms of quantity of purchase and sale. The sales declared by the assessee entire quantity recorded in the seized documents and the difference is only on account of inference drawn by the AO that these quantities are in fact in rupees. Otherwise there is no difference in quantities mentioned in the seized records. - Appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Estimation of sales based on seized documents and addition of undisclosed income.
2. Application of net profit rate on alleged sales by Assessing Officer.
3. Discrepancy in interpreting seized documents as sales value.
4. Justification of estimation of sales and addition of undisclosed income.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the Assessment Year 2006-07, challenging the estimation of sales at a specific amount based on seized documents, resulting in an addition to the undisclosed income. A search and seizure action under section 132 was conducted at the assessee's residence, revealing certain documents related to the jewellery business. The main contention was the Assessing Officer's error in construing the weight of purchases as alleged sales value, leading to the disputed amount. The Ld. CIT(A) acknowledged the nature of the assessee's business and the distinction from another company's operations, yet upheld the addition based on unrecorded sales.

2. The Assessing Officer applied a net profit rate of 20.48% on the alleged unrecorded sales, leading to the addition of undisclosed income. However, the appellant contended that this approach was erroneous as the quantities mentioned in seized documents were mistakenly interpreted as values. The appellant provided detailed explanations and calculations based on the seized material, emphasizing that the figures were in terms of weight/quantity, not value. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition despite the discrepancies in the Assessing Officer's estimation method.

3. The crux of the issue revolved around the misinterpretation of seized documents by the Assessing Officer, who considered the quantities of gold jewellery as sales values. The appellant consistently clarified that the figures in the seized documents were in terms of weight/quantity and not monetary value. The discrepancy arose from the Assessing Officer's inference that the quantities represented sales values, leading to the disputed estimation. The Tribunal found that the sales declared by the appellant aligned with the quantities recorded in seized documents, confirming the error in the estimation of sales and subsequent addition to undisclosed income.

4. Ultimately, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the appeal and directing the deletion of the addition to undisclosed income. The decision highlighted the misinterpretation of seized documents by the Assessing Officer, emphasizing that the figures represented quantities, not sales values. The Tribunal's analysis focused on the discrepancy between the weight-based figures provided by the appellant and the erroneous value-based estimation by the Assessing Officer, leading to the reversal of the addition to undisclosed income.