TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (12) TMI 705
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e order of CIT(A) deleting the addition made on the ground of undisclosed investment u/s. 69 of the Act. For this, revenue has raised following ground no.1: "1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A)-Durgapur erred in deleting addition made on the ground of undisclosed investment u/s. 69 for an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-." 3. Briefly stated facts are that the AO observed from the Balance Sheet as on 31.03.2009 that the assessee had shown Rs. 700/- only as security deposit to the Franchiser M/s. Senco Gold, Kolkata. The franchiser confirmed that Rs. 1,00,000/- was the balance under the head security deposit with them as on 31.03.2009. Hence, the balance amount of Rs. 99,300/- was treated as undisclosed investment in purs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....owing ground no.2: "2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A)-Durgapur erred in deleting addition made on the ground of undisclosed purchase for an amount of Rs. 9,49,463/-." 6. Briefly stated facts are that the AO during the course of assessment proceedings noticed that the assessee's purchases were adjusted against standard gold bar tendered by franchisee, which was as under: Sl. No. Dates Description & purity of Item adjusted as evident from the annexure furnished with letter dated 18.12.2011 Worth thereof including Input Tax Rs. Narration as appearing in the Franchiser's statement derived in course of verification. 1. 20.03.09 STD Gold 24 Kt. 187422 Amount adjusted with old gold purchase 2. 20.02.2009 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....purchased and sold like any other. In my opinion, the A.O. should have looked into this issue which he clearly has not. Besides, I fail to see how any franchisee would return goods which it had not received. As per the assessment order, no 24 carat standard gold bar was supplied to the appellant by the franchiser. There does not appear to be any dispute on this issue. Therefore, it would not be logical for the appellant to return the goods in the form of 24 carat gold bars by purchasing them from the market. I, therefore, find the appellant's explanation to be quite logical. The same is therefore accepted. This ground of appeal is allowed." Aggrieved, revenue is in appeal before Tribunal. 7. We have heard rival submissions and gone t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wer authorities. Consequently, the assessee accepts old gold ornaments from customers and adjusted the same with purchase bills. Actually bills are raised only in the net quantity of gold items sold to customers. Hence, stock of gold ornaments is automatically adjusted with respect to quantity of gold lying with the assessee, and hence, entire stock is not readily sellable to customers as it includes old gold ornaments. This stock of old gold ornaments was given to Senco Gold, Kolkata for adjustment with purchases of fresh ornaments from Senco Gold make. In this way, Senco Gold, Kolkata accepted old gold ornaments from assessee but customers while adjusting old gold ornaments with their new purchases would not only give the ornaments of Sen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rusal of the issues reveal that the appellant initially submitted inaccurate data in response to the AO's query. Subsequently, he had corrected the same and, stated by way of explanation that the error had occurred as a result of wrong copy paste. In my opinion, the A.O. while disposing of the issue has not considered either the explanation or the new set of figures given to him. Before rejecting the new figure the A.O. has not brought any material on record to indicate that the contention of the appellant that these were bona fide advances was not correct. I find that the A.O. has summarily rejected the new set of figures. In my opinion, this is not correct. A mistake in presentation of data cannot lead to a unilateral finding that the app....