TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal remands issues for fresh adjudication, upholds partial discrepancies, and directs reassessment.</h1> <h3>Mr. Neeraj Agrawal, Prop. M/s. Rajshree Jewellers Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-3, Mirzapur, U.P. And (Vice-Versa)</h3> Mr. Neeraj Agrawal, Prop. M/s. Rajshree Jewellers Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-3, Mirzapur, U.P. And (Vice-Versa) - [2023] 103 ITR ... Issues Involved:1. Differences in Stock at Mirzapur H.O.2. Differences in Stock at Varanasi B.O.3. Cash Deposits in Cash book of Rs. 10,15,000/-4. Excess Cash found During Survey5. Rejection of Books of accounts by invoking provisions of Section 145(3).6. Additions with respect to unexplained Sundry Creditors to the tune of Rs. 34,82,707/-7. Addition on account of Unsecured loans raised by assessee to the tune of Rs. 28,12,000/-8. Chargeability of Interest u/s 234B and 234CSummary:1. Differences in Stock at Mirzapur H.O.:The physical stock found during the survey at Mirzapur H.O. was compared with the stock recorded in the stock register, revealing discrepancies in silver items, gold jewelry, and silver bullions. The AO made additions based on these discrepancies, which were partly upheld and partly modified by the CIT(A). The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee another opportunity to substantiate the objections regarding weighment and purity of silver items.2. Differences in Stock at Varanasi B.O.:The survey at Varanasi B.O. revealed excess stock of silver items, gold jewelry, and silver bullions. The AO made additions based on these discrepancies. The CIT(A) accepted the assessee's explanation for a part of the silver items but upheld the additions for gold jewelry and silver bullions. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding gold jewelry and silver bullions but set aside the deletion of additions for silver items, directing the AO to reassess the matter.3. Cash Deposits in Cash book of Rs. 10,15,000/-:The AO added Rs. 10,15,000/- to the income of the assessee, treating it as unexplained cash credits. The CIT(A) deleted the additions, accepting the assessee's explanation that the amounts were advances received from related parties. The Tribunal upheld the deletion of Rs. 3,15,000/- received from a proprietary concern but remanded the matter of Rs. 7,00,000/- received from M/s Shambhoo Nath Agrawal Saraf back to the AO for fresh adjudication.4. Excess Cash found During Survey:The AO added Rs. 5,87,424/- to the income of the assessee, treating it as unexplained cash found during the survey. The CIT(A) granted partial relief of Rs. 18,074/- but upheld the remaining addition. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the AO for verification of the assessee's claim regarding the reconciliation of cash at Mirzapur H.O. and upheld the addition of cash found at Varanasi B.O.5. Rejection of Books of accounts by invoking provisions of Section 145(3):The AO rejected the books of accounts of the assessee, citing discrepancies in stock and cash found during the survey. The CIT(A) upheld the rejection of books of accounts. The Tribunal also upheld the rejection of books of accounts by the AO, noting the discrepancies and incomplete records.6. Additions with respect to unexplained Sundry Creditors to the tune of Rs. 34,82,707/-:The AO added Rs. 34,82,707/- to the income of the assessee, treating it as unexplained sundry creditors. The CIT(A) deleted the additions, accepting the confirmations filed by the assessee. The Tribunal set aside the appellate order and remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing the AO to verify the confirmations and other details.7. Addition on account of Unsecured loans raised by assessee to the tune of Rs. 28,12,000/-:The AO added Rs. 28,12,000/- to the income of the assessee, treating it as unexplained unsecured loans. The CIT(A) deleted the additions except for Rs. 5,75,000/- from Mr. Gopi Nath Agrawal. The Tribunal set aside the appellate order and remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing the AO to verify the genuineness of the transactions and the creditworthiness of the lenders.8. Chargeability of Interest u/s 234B and 234C:The assessee challenged the chargeability of interest u/s 234B and 234C. The CIT(A) upheld the levy of interest. The Tribunal also upheld the levy of interest, noting that it is mandatory and consequential to the assessment order.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
