9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 684X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ri Guru Jeweler. Assessee had purchased gold stock of 13 kg vide delivery challans no. DC3 and DC4 dated 01.04.2011, out whichsales of 7596.58 grams were made during 01.04.2011 to 04.04.2011. Therefore, after considering all facts, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT (A), accordingly, same is upheld. Decided against revenue. - I.T.A No. 20/ASR/2018 - - - Dated:- 18-2-2020 - Shri N.K. Choudhry, Judicial Member And Shri O.P. Meena, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri P. N. Arora , Advocate For the Revenue : Shri Charan Dass, Sr. D.R. ORDER PER O. P. MEENA, ACCOUTANT MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-1, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as the CIT (A) ) dated 31.10.2017 pertaining to Assessment Year 2012-13, which in turn has arisen from the assessment order passed under section 143 (3)dated 31.03.2015 of Income Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2) Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as the AO ). 2. Ground No. 1 to3 of appeal relates to deletion of the addition of ₹ 2,02,15,155 made by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llers, and delivery challans issued by Shri Guru Jewellers dated 01.04.2011 for 7000 grams and 6000 grams respectivelyand requested for admission of the same. The assessee also submitted copy of account in his books of accounts and stated that the payment was made by account payee cheques. It was found that the assessee was given final opportunity on 27.03.2015 at the fag end of the assessment proceedings, therefore, the above additional evidence could not be produced therefore, it was requested that these are very much necessary for admission under Rule 46A (1)(b) of Income- Tax Rules, 1962. Accordingly, the CIT (A) has forwarded the same to the AO. In response to which, the AO vide remand report dated 13.07.2017 stated that above additional evidence may not be entertained. In view of this, the AO was again requested to give his comments on merits. The AO vide remand report dated 22.09.2017 stated that after going through additional evidence and assessment records, it was noticed that gold was purchased from M/s. Shri Guru Jewellers , Delhi, vide tax invoice no. 00008 dated 05.04.2011. As per purchase of invoice and delivery challan, the purchases were made at the address C-128, P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom Shri Guru jewellers, New Delhi, who confirmed the transaction of selling 7 KG of Gold bar of purity 0.995 vide delivery challans no. DC3 and 6 Kg of gold bar of purity of 0.995 vide delivery challans no. DC4 dated 01.04.2011 to the appellant at the address C-128, Phase 4, Ashok Vihar, New Delhi for purchase of gold weighing 13 Kg by the branch of the appellant at Delhi on 01.04.2011 vide delivery challans no. DC3 and DC4, which established that the appellant had said stock of gold where from it made sales of 7596.58 grams of gold from 01.04.2011 to 04.04.2011. Therefore, the addition of ₹ 2,02,15,155 was deleted. 5. Being aggrieved, the Revenue has filed this appeal before this Tribunal.The ld. Sr. D.R. assailed the order of CIT (A).He supported the view of the AO that the Ld. CIT (A) wrongly admitted the additional evidence, when the same were not produced before the AO as discussed at Page No. 7 of assessment order. Further, the assessee has not brought to his notice during assessment proceedings that it had any branch at Delhi. Therefore, delivery of gold stock was not established. 6. Per contra , the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted the copy of challan, copy of account statement of M/s. Raja Co., ITR of Shri Guru Jewellers, PAN as required by the AO. The CIT (A) has forwarded the copy of remand report to the assessee for his comments, in which it was stated the AO has accepted the identity and having transaction with Shri Guru Jewellers and also accepted the delivery challans dated 01.04.2011, but he unable to verify the delivery to whom gold was delivered. We find that CIT (A) has verified that the assessee had a branch at C-128, Phase 4, Ashok Vihar New Delhi, with support of which copy of VAT returns of Delhi branch as filed by the assessee before him. In view of these facts and circumstances, the CIT (A) has admitted additional evidence under Rule 46A(1)(b) of Income-Tax Rules, 1962 and called for remand report on the same from the AO. Therefore, in such circumstances, the CIT (A) has rightly admitted additional evidences. In view of this matter, we do not find any infirmity in the admission of additional evidence by the Ld. CIT (A), accordingly, same is upheld. We further observe that the AO had made enquiry from M/s. Shri Guru Jewellers, who replied confirming that it had issued 7 kg of g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
