9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 613X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... infirmity in the order passed by the ld.CIT(A) and no interference is required on these issues. Statement recorded u/sec. 131A has no evidentiary value and cannot be taken as basis for addition - See case of Khader Khan Son [ 2013 (6) TMI 305 - SC ORDER ] Purchases and sales were not matching with VAT returns - CIT(A) noted that the assessee has submitted VAT returns where the 6A purchases were reported by the assessee. We therefore find that the assessee has satisfactorily explained the purchases and concur with the findings of the ld.CIT(A). We find no infirmity in the order passed by the ld.CIT(A) and no interference is required. Thus, the grounds raised by the Revenue is dismissed. - I.T.A. No. 75/VIZ/2021 And C.O.No.38/VI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e genuineness of the bills, where the Assessing officer has clearly established the bogus nature of the bills. 4. The CIT(A) ought to have observed that the explanation given by the assessee in the statement recorded u/s 131 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, that some purchases are not recorded in the purchase register has no value in the absence of details thereof. 5. The CIT(A) ought to have observed that the 6A purchases reported by the assessee in the purchase register are not in concurrence with VAT returns. 6. The CIT(A) ought to have noticed that non-availability of bills/vouchers for 6A purchases and nonpayment of refunds exceeding ₹ 20,000/- through cheque are nothing but submission of fabricated evidence in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Gold Jewellery 3600.574 grams 2.645/gm 95,23,518 Silver Articles 29181.76 grams 40.80/gm 11,90,615 1,07,14,133 However, in the return of income filed for the A.Y. 2017-18 on 30/10/2017 the assessee has not disclosed additional income of ₹ 1,07,14,133/- accepted at the time of survey in the return of income. Subsequently, a notice u/sec. 142(1) dated 09/05/2019 was issued to the assessee. In response to the notice, the assessee filed various replies to the AO. The AO after considering the evidences ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on [(2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC)] partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee by observing as under:- 6.1 .......... In this case, it was categorically held that a statement recorded u/s 133A of the Act has no evidentiary value and cannot be taken as the basis for addition. Therefore, I shall proceed to examine the sustainability of various additions made by the AO de hors the admission made at the time of survey u/sec. 133A of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. 6. Ground Nos. 1, 7 8 are general in nature, need not be adjudicated. 7. Ground Nos.2 3, ld.AR argued that purchases were made before the date of survey i.e. on 14/03/2017 and has stated in the statemen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sing Officer simply rejected the evidence on the ground that these bills were consecutively numbered. I found that the supplier Giriraj Jewellers is a registered dealer and raised a tax invoice charging VAT on the value of purchases. In case, the Assessing Officer had any doubt about the genuineness of these bills, he ought to have enquired into the matter to examine the genuineness of the bills. Without any such effort, the Assessing Officer is not justified in discarding the valid evidence filed by the appellant I do not find any merit in the action of the assessing officer. This addition of ₹ 40,84,656 is directed to be deleted. 6.4 Ground no.(4): This ground is directed against the addition of ₹ 26,34,505 towards purc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equired on these issues. 10. Regarding ground No.4, ld.AR relied on the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Khader Khan Son (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the civil appeal filed by the Revenue against the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court. We find force in the submissions of the ld.AR and by respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we concur with the findings of the ld.CIT(A) i.e. statement recorded u/sec. 131A has no evidentiary value and cannot be taken as basis for addition. 11. Regarding ground Nos. 5 6, ld.AR argued that it is the business of the assessee to buy old gold and in exchange of new gold which is termed as 6A purchases. Ld.AR a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
