TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (6) TMI 891
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er : "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 62,20,986 under section 69A which was made on the basis of verification during the course of survey under section 133A of the Income-tax Act." 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that M/s. Subhas Brothers Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., the assessee-company filed its return of income disclosing a total income of Rs. 8,19,780. In this case a survey was conducted and certain discrepancies like deficit in cash, stocks, etc., noticed. Accordingly the assessee admitted Rs. 14,00,000. While filing the return of income the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he accountant at that time lacking his duties and he has subsequently discharged from his service. The director late Subhas Ch. Dey already been expired. 3. That the discrepancy in gold ornaments was 556.986 gms was due to non-entry of stock register. 4. That discrepancy in diamond is 1,993 cents and silver is 6351.1/8 gms which was not bear property entered in the stock register. The main point is that all the jewellery gold ornaments and diamond and silver were purchased by cash but proper entry in stock register was not made properly due to lack of knowledge of the accountant or the transaction intimation was not intimated to the accountant.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sp; "1. Section 69A has been wrongly applied by the Assessing Officer. It has no application in the facts of the case of the appellant as narrated above. Cash found is part of cash balance as recorded in books. Cash not found but which existed as per cash book was utilised to do business and income of Rs. 14 lakhs was mutually discussed with search party and admitted as income which does appear in accounts and the Assessing Officer has accepted the same. 2. Without prejudice to the above, quantity of jewellery and ornaments found less at the time of survey cannot be converted in term of money and thus cannot be treated as income. Utmost, it may be taken as sales not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sp; 18. ct. 1417.703 gm 860.717 gm 556.965.gm Rs. 2,78,493.00 3. Diamond items 152 ct. 150.262 ct. 1,993 ct. Found less Rs. 1,993.00 4. Silver items 7948.59 gms 1596.810 gms 6351.178 gms Found less Rs. 95,267.00 Apart from the above, the Assessing Officer also noticed that gold ornaments of 877 gms in quantity were issued to sister concerns. Since the same were found to be not entered in the books, the value of such gold ornaments amounting to Rs. 5,13,112 was also added as income. When pointed out these discrepancies the appellant admitted Rs. 14,00,000 to cover up all the above discrepancies and accordingly filed return of income. However while completing the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... filed the return by the appellant. The Assessing Officer has neither rejected the books nor the stocks shown in the books. As such the excess entries in the books of account cannot be added again as undisclosed income. Now as regards undisclosed sales of Rs. 12,14,641 and value of gold ornaments issued to sister concerns and not entered in books (Rs. 5,13,112), I agree with the submissions made by the appellant in this regard. In view of the facts, I feel that the entire addition under various heads falls through because of factual position as discussed above. As such I direct the Assessing Officer to delete the various additions made under the various heads." Against the above order the Revenue is in appeal before us. 6. We have ....