9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 1482X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ling the appeal. The assessee has filed an application dated 02.07.2018 seeking condonation of delay along with an affidavit. It is stated in the application that the assessee is the Proprietor of M/s. P.P. Jewellers, Karimganj in the District of Karimganj, Assam. The impugned order was served upon the wife of the assessee on 28.02.2018 as the assessee was in Kolkata for treatment of his ailing father, Sri Dulal Chandra Paul throughout the month of March, 2018 and part of April, 2018. It is further submitted that as there is no Income Tax Practitioner in Karimganj who is willing to appear before the Hon'ble Gauhati Bench, Guwahati on behalf of the assessee, the assessee had to search for a tax consultant for remedial action against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). On 24th April, 2018, the assessee fell sick due to Jaundice with Hepatitis and was advised for bed rest and, therefore, the assessee could not file the appeal within the due date of filing of appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee then went to Shillong after recovery from illness for collecting the Income-tax records & materials from his Chartered Accountant who had appeared before the Ld. CIT(A), which were hand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 of the I.T. Act in the case of the Appellant. 5. For that the Appellant craves leave to take up any further ground or grounds at the time of hearing of the appeal." 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee Shri Picklu Paul was intercepted by the Air Intelligence Unit of Kolkata at the Kolkata Airport on 30.07.2013 while carrying cash of Rs. 73.25 lakhs. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on 30.07.2013 at NSCBI Airport, Kolkata and out of Rs.73.25 lakhs, an amount of Rs.73 lakhs was seized. A survey u/s 133A of the Act was also conducted in the business premises of M/s P.P. Jewellers, Prop. Shri Picklu Paul at Station Road, Karimganj on 31.07.2013. The impugned order was served upon the wife of the assessee on 28.02.2018 as the assessee was in Kolkata for the purpose of treatment of his ailing father. During the course of survey, papers/documents found and marked as SC-1 to SC-56 were impounded. The books of account were not found in the business premises nor the assessee was present in the business premises during the course of survey. A statement on oath of Shri Dulal Krishna Paul, the father of the assessee was recorded on 31.07.2013 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on Oath u/s 132(4) of the Act by the DDIT (Inv.), Kolkata at NSCBI Airport, Kolkata on 30.07.2013 but the same is stated to be not provided to the assessee. 6. The Ld. DR drew our attention to page 4 of the assessment order. On 29.07.2013, the assessee had opening cash balance of Rs. 7,79,300.50/- and sales of Rs. 67,00,043/- and advance receipt of Rs. 8,50,000/- from four persons of Karimganj. Confirmation of accounts in respect of the four persons were filed and the same were accepted by the Ld. AO is no addition was made on account of advance received from the 4 customers at Rs. 8,50,000/-. The cash sales of Rs. 67,00,043/- on 29.07.2013 were claimed to be made vide cash memos shown as issued to 20 persons without any proper address. It is mentioned in the assessment order that no cash book, ledger, etc. was found during the course of survey. On the date of search i.e. 30.07.2013, the assessee stated that his father had the details of the cash found in his possession but the authorised officer reported that during the course of survey the father of the assessee, who was found conducting the business at the time of survey, had no idea about the books of account. Therefore, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ash disclosure of Rs.73,00,000/- which was found with him and seized by the Department. I find no reason to disagree with the point put forth by the assessee. After all, cash of Rs.73,00,000/- was found in his possession and assessee stated that he had disclosed the same in his return. But this is without discounting the fact of the excess stock being found during the course of survey and appellant disclosing a sum of Rs.75,00,000/- on account of such discrepancy. The AO, as aforesaid, had taken the view that returned income of Rs.87,96,788/- comprised of disclosure of Rs. 75,00,000/-. However, the AO had added a sum of Rs.67,00,043/- on account of cash while assessee is claiming that he disclosed Rs.73,00,000/- on account of cash. Accepting assessee's claim that disclosure of Rs.73,00,000/- on account of cash would lead to enhancement of income if the discrepancy in stock to the tune of Rs.75,00,000/- was not explained properly with supporting facts and figures. In view of this, the following notice dated 08.09.2017 was issued to assessee. "A sum of Rs 73,25,000/- was found in your person at Kolkatta Airport on 30.07.2013 out of which Rs.73,00,000/- was seized by the Departm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ectness of the statement is being assailed on the ground that stock Valuation was not done by technically competent and approved valuer. But the same was done by assessee's staff and Departmental Officers not well-versed with technicality of jewellery valuation. An affidavit had been filed in this regard. But assessee had not come out with any factual details regarding the incorrectness of valuation done during survey. Jewellery items were found during survey. Their weights and values were given to the survey party by those in control of the business of assessee on that particular day. Assessee had not given any instance of any particular item of jewellery whose weight and value had been overstated. Assessee also had not come out with evidence to show that any item of jewellery had been inventorised twice. Assessee waxed eloquently about his cash book being in order. If the books of accounts and other records were properly maintained, there is no reason why assessee is unable to come out with factual details regarding incorrectness of valuation done during survey. In this kind of situation, mere argument that stocks were taken wrongly will not suffice. Similarly, filing of affi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom a perusal of the same that a sum of Rs. 87,96,787.12/- has been shown as the net profit for the financial year 2013-14 relevant for the AY 2014-15 and on page 31 of the paper book filed, a sum of Rs. 75,00,000/- is being shown as the stock disclosed during survey. Thus, the assessee himself has disclosed the excess stock found during the course of the survey, which fact is also appearing at page 32 of the paper book at para 3(a) in the Audit Report u/s 44AB of the Act. The date of survey is incorrectly mentioned as 31.03.2013 but the survey had actually taken place on 31.07.2013. Thus, the assessee himself has included the excess stock as his income in the audit report filed and which has also been included in the net profit of Rs. 87,96,788/- worked out on page 31 of the paper book. The sales are shown at Rs. 4,46,61,329/- which also include the sales of Rs. 67,00,043/- which are treated as unexplained and added as unexplained cash credit by the Ld. AO; however, the income from the same has not been excluded from the income computed by the assessee nor the purchases corresponding to the sales have been disturbed. In case the purchases are not disturbed, but the sales are treat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
