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>Employee embezzlement loss allowed as deduction after finding sufficient evidence of actual stock theft by worker</h1> <h3>Heena Gems Versus ACIT-16 (3), Mumbai</h3> Heena Gems Versus ACIT-16 (3), Mumbai - TMI Issues Involved:1. Disallowance of claim of loss due to embezzlement of business stock.2. Addition on account of bogus purchases.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Disallowance of Claim of Loss Due to Embezzlement of Business Stock:The assessee, a partnership firm engaged in the business of manufacturing, purchasing, and selling gold and diamond jewelry, claimed a loss of Rs. 1,32,14,143/- due to embezzlement of stock by an employee. The assessee filed an FIR on 29.09.2010 for theft of Rs. 9,50,000/-, which was later revised to Rs. 1,32,18,143/- after tallying the stock. The AO disallowed the claim, questioning the delay in lodging the FIR and the lack of immediate recovery efforts. The CIT (A) upheld the AO's decision, not admitting the police report as additional evidence and doubting the genuineness of the theft claim.Upon review, the Tribunal noted that the assessee provided substantial evidence, including the FIR, police reports, and details of the stolen items. The Tribunal found no reason to disbelieve the embezzlement, criticizing the AO and CIT (A) for dismissing the claim without proper consideration of the evidence. The Tribunal highlighted the detailed rebuttal provided by the assessee, addressing the AO's contentions about the delay in filing the FIR and the nature of the stock records. The Tribunal concluded that the loss due to embezzlement was genuine and allowed the claim, deleting the disallowance of Rs. 1,32,14,143/-.2. Addition on Account of Bogus Purchases:For the A.Y. 2012-13, the assessee faced an addition of Rs. 53,84,050/- due to alleged bogus purchases from M/s. Aadi Impex and M/s. Kalash Enterprises, based on information from the DGIT (Investigation) and Maharashtra VAT department. The AO treated the entire purchase as bogus, citing involvement in providing accommodation entries. The CIT (A) confirmed this addition.The Tribunal reviewed the evidence, including purchase details, banking transactions, and corresponding sales. The Tribunal noted that the assessee provided comprehensive documentation, such as ledger accounts, confirmations, and bank statements. The Tribunal referred to precedents, including decisions by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, which held that only profit should be added in cases of bogus purchases, not the entire purchase amount. The Tribunal applied a gross profit rate of 3% over and above the declared GP rate, resulting in an addition of Rs. 1,61,520/- instead of the entire Rs. 53,84,050/-. Consequently, the appeal for A.Y. 2012-13 was partly allowed, granting partial relief to the assessee.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the appeal for A.Y. 2011-12, recognizing the genuineness of the embezzlement loss, and partly allowed the appeal for A.Y. 2012-13, adjusting the addition based on a reasonable gross profit rate. The judgments emphasize the importance of thorough evidence and proper consideration in tax assessments.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
