9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 1342X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r hand, the husband of the assessee was present on 8.11.2012 before the authorities and he submitted before the authorities that in part performance of his promise, he paid a sum of ₹ 5.00 lakhs for the A.Y 2013-14 towards advance tax and produced the copy of challan. Subsequently on 18.12.2014, though the assessee challenged the authority of her husband to give any statement binding her, did not dispute the fact of survey or the findings of any excess stock during that survey worth - Even at that time also, the assessee did not plead about the errors, if any, in the valuation of jewellery or that part of excess stock contains the gold ornaments received from or being given by certain customers for repairs/re-modelling available in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Y.V. Bhanu Narayan Rao For the Revenue : Sri A. Venkata Rao, (DR) ORDER PER BENCH: Aggrieved by the order dated 29.11.2018, passed by the CIT(A)-2, Hyderabad ( learned CIT(A) ) in the case of Smt. Varalakshmi Lakkisetty ( the assessee ) for the A.Y 2013-14, u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( the Act ), the assessee preferred this appeal. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee runs a business under the name of M/s. Laxmi Prasanna Jewellers. There was a survey operation u/s 133A on 7.11.2012 in the presence of the husband and two sons of the assessee who were effectively conducting the business on behalf of the assessee. During the survey, an excess stock of gold/ornaments weighing 2803.082 grams of go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led the return of income for the A.Y 2013-14 declaring an income of ₹ 18,12,000/- after claiming deduction of ₹ 92,364/- under chapter VIA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. Learned Assessing Officer, however, did not believe the version of the assessee as to the bills produced subsequently and he proceeded to complete the assessment by order dated 11.3.2016 u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act by making the addition of ₹ 83,01,000/- 6. Aggrieved by such an action of the learned Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT (A) expressing grievance that no proper opportunity of being heard was given to her and the search was not conducted with the knowledge of the assessee. The assessee subsequently chal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inventory nor any proper valuation of the excess stock and therefore, if we exclude the statement of the husband of the assessee, there is no material to support the addition. He further pleaded that the closing stock value as on 31.3.2013 as disclosed by the assessee was ₹ 1,56,96,234/- in the return of income which includes the entire stock including the disputed stock and therefore, the addition cannot be sustained. 10. Per contra, it is the submission of the Revenue that the law does not require that the survey must be conducted in the presence of the owner of the business alone and it requires the presence of proprietor or the employee or any other person carrying on such business or profession. Consequently, he submitted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e issued to the assessee on 7.11.2012 itself requiring her presence on 8.11.2012 before the Income Tax Authorities. The assessee did not present herself as required in the summons but on the other hand, the husband of the assessee was present on 8.11.2012 before the authorities and he submitted before the authorities that in part performance of his promise, he paid a sum of ₹ 5.00 lakhs for the A.Y 2013-14 towards advance tax and produced the copy of challan. Subsequently on 18.12.2014, though the assessee challenged the authority of her husband to give any statement binding her, did not dispute the fact of survey or the findings of any excess stock during that survey worth ₹ 83,01,000/-. Even at that time also, the assessee did ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
