9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 870X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its, the eleven copies of confirmation from creditors submitted by assessee reveals that the signatures by Authorised Signatory for the assessee were all signed on the same date i.e. 01.04.2011 but none of these signatures matches another. These documents lack authenticity and credibility and are not genuine but bogus documents. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,25,00,000/- on account of cash deposits when the genuineness of cash sales as well as its correlation with cash deposits into banks was not established especially no names PAN nos and other details of the purchasers have been recorded on the invoices which therefore lack credibility as they appear to be bogus documents. 4. Whether the Ld.CIT(A) was right in deleting the additions without appreciating the facts that a search was conducted on Shree Raj Mahal Group of jewellers on 15.10.2013 the stock was found short in many of the group companies during search operation. M/s Solitaire World Pvt. Ltd. is associated with SRM Group of company. During the search the enquiry M/s Radha Jewellery House was found to be unable t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ficer in order to collect further information a letter was written to assessee company on 22.03.2018 to furnish the details with respect to the transactions made with M/s Radha Jewellery House. However, there was no reply received from the assessee and the sources of transaction made with M/s Radha Jewellery House remained unverifiable and unexplained. 4. On examination of the information received from DCIT (Inv.) and on perusal of the information on the ITBA/ITD System, the details available on the MCA website portal and as per the enquiries conducted in the case of the assessee the Assessing Officer believed that income of Rs. 5,65,88,512/- which was chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the AY 2011-12 within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act and after recording the reasons, notice u/s 148 was issued on 31.03.2018. Assessee filed its objections against the reasons recorded by challenging the proposed reassessment u/s 148/147 by letter dated 10.04.2018. 5. Notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 30.07.2018 was issued to the assessee company fixing the case for hearing on 03.08.2018 and in response the assessee furnished a copy of tax audit report and computation of income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny details nor any explanation in response to the said notice. Therefore, the AO came to the conclusion that since the onus on the assessee company to prove the identity and credit worthiness of the parties and the genuineness of the transactions which the assessee failed to discharge the said trade liabilities created in the balance sheet to the tune of Rs. 25,84,23,427/- has been treated as unexplained. Accordingly, the same was added u/s 68 of the Act. 8. The Assessing Officer further as per the information available on the record in ITBA, noticed that in the year under consideration assessee has deposited total cash amounting to Rs. 1,25,00,000/- in its bank account on 07.03.2011, 08.03.2011 and 09.03.2011 by depositing Rs. 25,00,000/-, 50,00,000/- and 50,00,000/- respectively. In order to verify these transactions a notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 16.11.2018 with a specific query was issued to the assessee and served through mail and speed post calling for the information and for compliance on 20.11.2018. However, no compliance was made by the assessee on the given date and the assessee did not obtain any adjournment also. Since the assessee has failed to substantiate the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the additions. The Ld. Counsel strongly supported the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals) and reiterated the submissions made before the Ld.CIT(Appeals). 11. Heard rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below. We observe that the AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act making the following additions for the reason that the assessee did not respond to the notices issued nor any explanations or evidences were furnished: 1. unexplained expenditure - Rs. 5,65,88,512/- 2. unexplained cash credit - Rs. 25,84,23,427/- 3. unexplained cash deposits - Rs. 1,25,00,000/- 12. Before the Ld.CIT(A) the assessee has furnished various evidences along with application for admission of the evidences under Rule 46A of IT Rules. The Ld.CIT(A) called for remand report from the AO and the AO submitted his remand report on the addition made on account of unexplained expenditure of Rs. 5,65,88,512/- stating that the assessee has been provided ample opportunities and the assessee did not respond and therefore no additional evidence is admissible under Rule 46A. In so far as the addition made on account of unexplained cash credit of Rs. 25,88,23,427/- the AO in the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5.4. The appellant has also filed copy of ledger account, bank statement, copies of invoices in respect of sale/ purchases made and copy of stock register of M/s Radha jewellery House. It was also submitted that M/s Radha jewellery House is one of the group concerns of the appellant. It was further submitted that M/s Radha Jewellery House has shown its income for the year under consideration of Rs. 14,26,630/- and for the AYs 2010-11 and 2012-13 of Rs. 3,69,939/- and Rs. 14,64,774/- respectively. The entire payment with reference to sale made by the appellant to M/s Radha Jewellery House was received by the appellant through banking channel during the year and in the succeeding year. The details of sale/ purchases filed by the appellant in respect of M/s Radha Jewellery House prove the fact that M/s Radha Jewellery House was dealing in gold and diamond jewellery and these fact are verifiable from the stock register also. Out of the total sale of Rs. 5,65,88,512/- made by the appellant to M/s Radha Jewellery House, Rs. 2,15,80,000/- was paid during the year under consideration and the balance amount of Rs. 3,50,08,512/- was received in the next financial year. These facts are verif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant and the facts of the case as discussed above, I find that there was sale in cash made by the appellant during the year as well as in the subsequent assessment year which is verifiable from the copies of cash book filed by the appellant in this regard. The cash was available with the appellant to deposit the same into the bank account. The source of the cash available with the appellant as explained by it is reproduced as under:- "a) Opening balance of cash in hand as on 01.03.2011 was Rs. 1,76,508/-. b) The assessee had made cash sales amounting to Rs. 13,23,675/- as on 03.03.2011 and Rs. 13,54,529/- as on 05.03.2011. Out of the said amount cash of Rs. 25,00,000/- was deposited in the bank account on 07.03.2011. Copy of the sale vouchers are enclosed at Page 91 to 92 of above referred letter. c) The assessee had made cash sales amounting to Rs. 30,70,179/- as on 07.03.2011 and Rs. 19,51,407/- as on 07.03.2011. Out of the said amount cash of Rs. 50,00,000/- was deposited in the bank account on 08.03.2011. Copy enclosed at Page 93 to 94 of above referred letter. d) The assessee had made cash sales amounting to Rs. 26,87,294/- as on 08.03.2011 and Rs. 22,33,936/- as on 08 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
