TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (4) TMI 343
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....p deed and details of stock and expenses. The assessee submitted the details as under :- 1) Acknowledgement copy of WT returns of two partners for A. Y.2001-02. 2) Copy of partnership deed. 3) Bank statement of the firm from 14.6.2005 to 30.6.2006 of Dena Bank, Mulund (W), Mumbai. 4) Copies of sales-tax challans for F. Y. 2005-06. On verification of return of previous years filed with the department, it was seen that assessee's contention that, he had been holding closing stock of jeweliery of Rs.85, 16,248/- for all these previous years is false, incorrect and without any basis. Also it is seen from the details filed that the assessee has not been able to support his claim since no details of conversion of stock-in-trade has been filed with supporting evidence. Hence, assessee's contention of closing stock being available is not acceptable and added back as unexplained money and taxed u/s. 69A of the I. T. Act. 4. By the impugned order, the CIT(A) deleted the addition after having following observations :- "2.6 I have carefully examined the order of the Assessing Officer and the submissions made by the appellant along with its annexures in support of the contention raised, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... u/s. 69 at a letter date. I find that the Assessing Officer has never questioned the nature of source of investment in the earlier years or doubted the books of accounts of the appellant. I find that the Assessing Officer has taken no action to investigate into the documents submitted by the appellant to prove its case but has summarily rejected the appellant's contention regarding the fact that the stock represented the capital introduced by the partners in form of jewellery,. In fact, documents submitted at the time of appellate proceedings show that vide letter dated 17.12.08 and 26.12.08, the appellant had submitted all details required before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer, I find, has resorted to the policy of pick and choose and has mentioned only some documents in the assessment order and had completely ignored the others The Assessing Officer was not at liberty to do so. The explanation of the appellant was required to be examined taking into consideration the totality of circumstances and records and if any lacunae had been found, the same needed detailing. The books of accounts of the appellant have not been rejected. Neither has the trading and profit & l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fication of the retur5n for A. Y.2006-07 by the assessing officer of the partners, viz., Name of the partners PAN AO I) Ramlal K. Jam, HUF MJHR 2975Q 23(3)(2) ii) Prakash R. Jam, HUF AAHHP8834J 23(3)(1) that no long term capital gain was offered on sale of jewellery. Against the above order of CIT(A), the Revenue is in further appeal before us. 6. It was argued by the learned DR that addition made on account of unexplained money amounting to Rs.85,16,248/- was deleted by CIT(A) in contravention of Rule 46A. The CIT(A) has accepted the additional evidence with regard to the declaration of capital gain on the jewellery converted by the partners into stock-in-trade, and introducing the same as capital in the firm. Learned DR further contended that as per clear finding recorded by the AO, the assessee has only filed WT returns of two partners for the assessment year 2001-02, however, no return of income was filed before the AO wherein assessee has offered the capital gains earned on conversion of personal jewellery into stock-in-trade of the firm. Our attention was also invited to the observation of the AO to the effect that assessee has not been able to support his claim since n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....06-07, passed in ITA No.2379/Mum/2010 vide order dated 7-10-2012. From the record, we found that assessee is a partnership firm, in the return of income so filed assessee has claimed nature of business as reseller of gold, silver and diamonds. During the course of scrutiny assessment the AO found that assessee had not shown any purchase during the year. The stock shown was the net figure of Rs.85.15 lakhs. The details of the same was not filed. The AO further observed that there was no sundry debtors or creditors or any loans. As per observation of the AO, the assessee only submitted copy of wealth tax return of two partners for the assessment year 2001-02. The AO further observed that on verification of return of previous years filed with the department, it was found that assessee's contention that, he has been holding closing stock of jewellery of Rs.85,16,248/- for all these previous years is false, incorrect and without any basis. The AO further observed that assessee has not been able to support his claim since no details of conversion of personal jewellery into stock-in-trade has been filed with supporting evidence. Hence, assessee's contention of closing stock being availabl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se of Prakash Ramlal Jain (HUF) at page 41 and Shri Ramlal Keshrimal Jain (HUF), which indicate the working of capital gain computed under Section 45(3). Thus, there is a clear contradiction in the return of income filed for the relevant assessment year 2001-02 by the two partners vis-à-vis computation of total income placed in the paper book, which requires examination on the part of the AO to reach to the correct conclusion. The basic claim of assessee was that partners of the assessee firm has converted their personal jewellery into stock-in-trade in the assessment year 2002-03 and respective capital gains/loss was offered in the return of income and the same was accepted by the department. As per assessee these jwelleries after converting into stock-in-trade, was introduced in firm as partner's capital. These jewelleries were held by the assessee firm as its stock-in-trade from A.Y.2001-02 till A.Y.2006-07 under consideration. There was no any other purchase or sale during all these four years. However, we find that both returns of income of partners do not indicate any GIR Number or PAN Number. The basic claim of assessee firm is that their partners were owning gold orn....