9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1478X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e bill. The assessee is free to furnish the necessary evidence to address the difference found during the course of survey in the reasonable time. In the instant case, the assessee had furnished all the bills from M/s Jai Mata Di Jewellers and voucher No.92, which was raised for issue of gold to M/s Jai Mata di Jewelelrs before the Ld.CIT(A) as well as the AO. Therefore, the assessee has established that the pure gold was issued to M/s Jai Mata Di Jewellers was received back subsequently. The department did not make out a case that the bill issued by M/s Jai Mata Di Jewellers as either bogus or fake. We agree with the observation of the CIT(A) that the AO has made the addition only on suspicion and surmises, hence, the addition made by the AO is unsustainable. Addition for deficit cash found in the business premises during the survey - Addition u/s 68 - HELD THAT:- In this case, there was deficit cash of ₹ 11,59,906/- which was found during the course of survey and the assessee had explained that ₹ 8,00,000/- was kept in his house. The said statement given at the time of survey was also confirmed u/s 132 on 24.11.2015 during the course of search conducted in the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee firm submitted a purchase bill dated 21.11.2015 from M/s B.G. Jewellers, Mumbai for net weight of 1521.744 gms which was accepted and allowed the credit and excess stock was arrived at 2752.742 gms. Subsequently, in the next hearing, the assessee furnished a bill from M/s Jai Mata Di Jewellers dated 21.11.2015 stating that the said bill was also not entered in the books as the same was lying with another partner, Shri Rajendra Jain who was on tour at the time of survey conducted in the assessee s case. The Assessing Officer (AO) verified the bill received from M/s Jai Mata Di Jewellers and found that it was a labour bill for 2717.400 gms net weight, @Rs.135 per gram and the total bill amount was ₹ 3,66,849/-. But the bill did not contain the details of date on which the gold was given to M/s Jai Mata Di Jewellers and there was no evidence of issue of the gold for making jewellery with the assessee. The assessee submitted that the gold bars weighing a total of 3100 gms were purchased and issued to M/s Jai Mata Di Jewellers on 13.11.2015 vide voucher No.92, for making of gold ornaments of 916 KDM quality. These gold bars were purchased from M/s SVBC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the assessee. The bill of M/s Jai Mata Di Jewellers dated 21.11.2015 produced by the assessee subsequently is an afterthought with an intention to adjust the difference and to evade the tax. Therefore, argued that the AO has rightly made the addition which should have been confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A). 5. On the other hand, the Ld.AR relied on the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and argued that, at the time of survey the assessee could not produce the bill since the partner was away on tour. No sooner the partner has arrived, the assessee has reconciled the stock position and on finding the fact that the receipt of jewellery from M/s Jai Mata Di Jewellers and the gold bars given for making 916 KDM jewellery was entered in the books and submitted the same before the AO. The Ld.AR further submitted that the purchase of gold bar and issue and receipt of gold jewellery are verifiable facts and genuine transactions. The Ld.AR further argued that survey u/s 133A was conducted in the assessee s case on 24.11.2015 and the bill was produced before the AO on 03.12.2015, within a span of 15 days, thus there was no undue delay also. Hence, argued that the Ld.CIT(A) has ri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Visakhapatnam on 09.11.2015 and 13.11.2015. It is also not in dispute that jewellery weighing 2717.400 gms is physically available in the shop during the survey. The appellant had issued a bill for 3,100 gms to M/s.Jaimatadi Jewellers vide voucher 92 dt.14.11.2015 was not produced by the appellant during the survey. Besides, the appellant has also failed to produce the labour bill dt.21.11.2015 for manufacturing of gold jewellery weighing 2717.400 gms on the ground that the said bill was in the custody of one of the partners who was not present in the shop on the date of survey. Be that as it may, both M/s.B.G. Jewellers as well as M/s.Jaimatadi Jewellers bills were not traced during the survey and before arriving the excess stock. Upon enquiry, the appellant had produced bill of M/s. B.G. Jewellers before conclusion of survey. Thus, the Assessing Officer considered it genuine and reasonable. Whereas in the case of M/s.Jaimatadi Jewellers, the bills were not produced as they were not physically available in the premises. The appellant had produced the copy of bill from the manufacturer on 03.12.2015 on which date a statement u/s 131(1A) of the Act was recorded. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d doubted the authenticity of the billdt.21.11.2015 without eliciting defects or infirmities in the bill. I have verified the ledger account of not only M/s.Jaimatadi Jewellers M/s.B.G Jewellers but other parties where the issue of pure gold and equivalent weight of gold in new ornaments were recorded. None of the bills contain details of gold ornaments. Therefore, the method followed by the appellant is common for all manufacturers. The Assessing Officer s observation that the labour bill does not contain details of ornaments and probable date of return is of no importance. It is not a case where material, was not delivered by manufacturer without bill or vice-versa. If carrying the bill inadvertently proves to be detrimental, the Assessing Officer or survey party would have immediately verified the matter with manufacturer, whose details are very much in the possession of the Assessing Officer. If some inconsistencies of facts surface in that process, the issue would have been different. It appears Sri Rajendra Jain returned on 25.11.2015 and necessary entries were made in the books as there was time for finalising the books for the Asst. Year 2016-17. This incident happened muc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngly, we uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the revenue on this ground. 7. Ground Nos. 4 and 5 are related to the deficit cash found in the business premises during the survey. The survey team found the physical cash balance of ₹ 22,65,000/- against the book balance of ₹ 34,24,906/- resulting in deficit cash of ₹ 11,59,906/- at the time of survey. The assessee was asked to explain the reason for deficit cash. The assessee explained that a sum of ₹ 8,00,000/- was taken by the partner from the shop and kept in his residence and the balance amount of ₹ 3,59,906/- was miscellaneous cash available in the counter. The assessee further argued that the survey team has not inventorised the cash available in the counter. However, the assessee offered a sum of ₹ 3,50,000/- as additional income on account of deficit cash. The AO during the assessment proceedings found that the assessee has made the cash entry of ₹ 9,17,200/- in the name of Mahendra Kumar Jain instead of ₹ 8,00,000/-. Since there was a mismatch in the explanation given by the assessee at the time of survey and in the books of accounts, the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iness and deficit cash of ₹ 8,00,000/- in the business premises stands explained. The debit entry in the capital account of the partner was made, since, the cash brought from the shop was seized from the residence of the partner and partly due to payment of income tax. The said entry has nothing to do with the cash available at the time of search. There was further difference of ₹ 3,59,906/- which was stated to be partly counter cash which was not inventorised by the survey team and offered to income. As rightly observed by the Ld.CIT(A), there is no reason to disbelieve the explanation of the assessee with regard to the source of ₹ 8,00,000/- and balance of ₹ 3,50,000/- was admitted as income in response to show cause notice issued by the AO vide his letter dated 04.12.2017. Since the assessee failed to explain the reason for deficit cash and admitted the same as income in its hands, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the Ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, we uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and confirm the addition of ₹ 3,59,906/-. In the result, appeal of the revenue as well as cross objection filed by the assessee on this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
