TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (8) TMI 837
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in law ,the Id.CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,98,600/- made on account off unaccounted expenses on houses despite the fact that the addition was made on the basis of documents impounded during the course of survey and was admitted by the assessee's partner in his statement. Further the assessee firm failed to explain the same during the assessment proceedings. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 28,09,862/- made on account of unaccounted excess stock admitted by the assessee during the course of survey proceedings despite the fact that the unaccounted stock was not found recorded in the assessee's regular books of accounts at the time of survey. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 43,35,039/- by accepting the explanations of the assessee on the retractions without appreciating the fact that the assessee firm had filed the explanations/details of such retractions only on 24/12/2009 with the mala-fide intention of preventing the A.O. from making any indepth inquiries as the assessment ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....have heard the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. Assessee has made the following written submissions vide letter dated 04/08/2014:- "We ore in receipt of your notice fixing up the hearing dated 22-08-2014 in the subject appellate matter and in response to it, we would like to make following submission for the kind consideration of your honours. 1. The appellant is a partnership firm engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of diamonds. 2. The year under consideration is A.Y. 2007-2008. 3. The subject submission is filed against the appeal filed by the department on the following grounds: the learned AO has erred in making addition of Rs. 43,35,039/- towards income disclosed in survey, inspite of the fact that the appellant had made partial retraction out of the aggregate disclosure of Rs. 70,02,520/- in survey. That on facts and circumstances of the case, the learned AO has erred in making the impugned addition on following grounds, totally disregarding the submissions along with relevant documentary evidences filed by the appellant during the course of assessme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....R 101 (Hon'ble High Court of Kerala) - CIT vs. S. Khader khan sons (2008) 300 1TR 157 (Hon'ble High Court of Madras) - DC1T vs. M/s. Premsons 1TA No. 4698/Mum/2006 (Hon'ble IT AT Mumbai) Copy of the said judgements is enclosed herewith in Annexure-2 for the .immediate reference of your honours. 7.Prayer: In the light of above submissions and judicial pronouncement, we most respectfully and humbly request your honour to accept the order as passed by the learned CIT.(A)-V, Surat and to pass suitable direction taking sympathetic and judicious view in the subject matter." 5.1. We find that the ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition by observing as under:- "DECISION: 6.1. I have gone through the assessment order and the detailed submissions of the appellant as made above. I do not agree with the reasons given by the A.O. while making addition on account of excess cash found and unaccounted investment made in partners houses, due to the following reasons: i. The A.O. has mentioned that satakhat was not found during the survey nor it was pointed out by the assessee during the survey. In my opinion, this is not a cogent reason to make addition because the papers may or m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ered into agreement for sale of immovable property. It was claimed that the agreement was executed in individual capacity by the partner in favour of the six parties who gave advance to the partner of the assessee-firm. Admittedly, the AO has not made any enquiry from the parties who has given advances to the partner of the assessee who claimed to have been received advance in cash. The ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition on the basis that the AO has filed to ascertain the genuineness of the agreement. The ld.CIT(A) also observed that there is no legal bar in purchasing or selling of property in cash. The ld.CIT(A) was of the view that the source being cash belonging to one of the partners Shri Shantial G.Kakadia (receipt from six parties with whom agreement for sale of his property was made), the A.O. should not have added this amount to the firm's total income. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that one of the partners of the assessee-firm has owned up the excess cash found during the course of survey subsequent to survey action. It is also not in dispute another partner surrendered the same as undisclosed income during the course of survey. Subsequently, the other partner r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... this contention, reliance is placed on the following case-laws:- 1. Paul Mathew & Sons. Vs. CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker.) 2. CIT vs. S.Khader Khan Sons (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Mad.) 3. DC(IT vs. M/s.Premsons ITA No.4698/Mum/2006. 6.1. We have heard the ld.Sr.DR, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below as well as the written submissions of the assessee. We find that the ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition by observing as under:- "6.2. So far as addition on account of unaccounted stock of Rs. 28,09,862/- (retracted amount) is concerned the appellant has reasonably been able to explain/justify the retraction made by way of bringing the fact that one of the purchase bills was remained to be accounted for in the books of accounts. The A.O. instead of verifying this claim of the appellant, has emphasized on the other not so significant facts like the purchase bill was not found during the course of survey, the bill is for rough diamond whereas excess good was rough and semi polished diamond, there is difference between the bill value and the value confirmed in the statement during the survey etc. I do not agree with the A.O.s a....