9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1314X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rgument of the counsel for the appellant that the statement, elicited during the survey operation has no evidentiary value. We are of the view that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). That being so, we decline to interfere in the order passed by the ld. CIT(A), his order on this issue is hereby upheld and the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue is dismissed. - IT A No. 446/Kol/2016 - - - Dated:- 23-3-2018 - Shri A. T. Varkey, JM And Dr. A. L. Saini, AM Appellant by : Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT(DR) Respondent by : Shri Saikat Maulik ORDER Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM The captioned appeal filed by the Revenue, pertaining to assessment year 2011-12, is directed against an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-Burdwan, in Appeal No.60/CIT(A)/Asl/ACIT/Cir- 2/Bwn/2014-15, dated 22.12.2015, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ), dated 18.03.2014. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue reads as under: 1.That the ld. CIT(A), Burdwan was not justified in deleting the additio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... one. So, out of the total difference of 3822.36 gms, 2166 gms can be explained as stock received from karigar. Since all the books of accounts have been impounded by the I.T Department, therefore, assessee made the receipts entry in new GS-12 on the next day i.e. on 21.01.2011. In the impounded GS-12 register on the last page, the I.T. Department had put a remark that it is before 20.01.2011 . The newGS-12 register again started by assessee from 21.01.2011, therefore, it was clear that entries are required to be made for transactions taken place before commencing of survey on 20.01.2011, otherwise correct picture of all transactions could not be ascertained. This way, the assessee has explained the reasons why 1656.36 gms i.e. (3822.36 gram 2166 gram) was unaccounted for in the books as undisclosed gold ornaments instead of 3822.36 gms as found apparently at the time of survey. This fact had also been highlighted by the assessee while giving answer to Question No.6. However, the AO rejected the contention of the assessee. 3.1 Having gone through the submissions of the assessee, the assessing officer noted that during the survey proceedings, excess of gold ornaments weighing 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... corded in GS-11, impounded books. The said gold was returned on 20.01.2011, audit could not be recorded in GS-12 register due to survey and the said gold was recorded in GS-12 on next day i.e. 21.01.2011, as the GS-12 was impounded by the Income Tax Authorities. This fact was clarified to the assessing officer at the time of assessment proceedings and the AO has examined the books of accounts and did not find any defects in the books of accounts. Moreover, the AO has not rejected the books of account u/s 145 of the Act. During the assessment proceedings, the statement was recorded on oath which does not have any evidentiary value because the said statement has not been corroborated by any tangible evidence. The ld. counsel for the assessee also submitted that there is no requirement under the law specially u/s 133A to take the statement on oath. However, what is recorded in the statement on oath has not been corroborated by any evidence. Therefore, the statement taken during survey does not have any evidentiary value. 6.We have given a careful consideration to the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record, we note that assessee has explained the difference ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in respect of valuation of stock is the cost or net realizable value, whichever is lower. Therefore, the Assessing Officer erred in taking the value of stock at market price when the cost of stock was lower. It is admittedly a fact that this gold was issued to karigars and it is also true that the AO has not brought anything on record to state that this was not received back. It was also a fact that the receipt of such ornaments was not entered in the old GS-12 register, which was admittedly in the possession of the Department therefore assessee recorded the receipts of gold in new GS-12 register on the next day of survey. The assessee, during the survey explained in his statement in reply to Question No.6 that the said stock of 2166 gms could be with karigars, and the aforesaid fact of return of gold ornament by the karigars, which was entered in new GS-12 register, corroborates this fact. 6.2 We also note that the assessing officer did not reject the books of accounts of the assessee u/s 145(3) of the Act andhe did not find any infirmity in the purchase and sale of the assessee and if the purchase and sale is not doubted then stock records of the assessee should naturally goi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
