9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 1130X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... addition of ₹ 1,00,06,656/- made by the AO, which does not need any interference on our part, hence, we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A). - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No. 4110/DEL/2010 - - - Dated:- 10-11-2014 - SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Department by : Sh. Gaurav Dudeja, Sr. D.R. Assessee by : Sh. Ashwani Taneja, Adv. ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU : JM This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the Order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III, Delhi dated 07.6.2010 pertaining to assessment year 2007-08 on the following grounds:- 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law on facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was of ₹ 1,77,17,888/- in which stock of 92% of gold jewellery was ₹ 45,16,819/-. Stock was shown to the bank in an inflated manner at the total value of ₹ 1,95,37,999/- which included 92% gold jewellery of ₹ 1,45,23,476/-. Case of assessee is that inflated stock was given to the bank for obtaining higher OD limit and actual stock was that of ₹ 1,77,17,888/-. Alternatively, case of the assesse was that if Ld. AO was to accept the bank statement as correct, then he ought to have accepted the entire stock statement given to the bank as correct and not to have picked up 92% gold jewellery in isolation and Ld. AO ought to have made addition on account of difference of ₹ 18,20,111/- (Rs. 1,95,37,999 ͅ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted. 4. We have heard both the counsel and perused the records. We find that Ld. CIT(A) has elaborately discussed the issue in question, after dealing the various High Court decisions, and concluded his finding vide para no. 6 as under:- 6. It emerges from the facts in the case before the Hon ble Court (viz. Recon Machine Tolls Pvt. Ltd. reported in 286 ITR 637 Karnataka High Court decision), no acceptable evidence was produced before the Court to disbelieve the bank statement, wherein the present case, the appellant had produced the bills for the purchases and sales and the Assessing Officer had not pointed out any suppression of purchases or sales. The books of accounts were produced for the verification and the same were found to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
