TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 1478
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the business premises of the assessee on 24.11.2015 and the residential premises of the partners was covered u/s 132 of the Act. During the course of survey, excess stock of 4247.486 gms of gold jewellery was found compared to the book stock. During the survey proceedings, partner of the assessee firm submitted a purchase bill dated 21.11.2015 from M/s B.G. Jewellers, Mumbai for net weight of 1521.744 gms which was accepted and allowed the credit and excess stock was arrived at 2752.742 gms. Subsequently, in the next hearing, the assessee furnished a bill from M/s Jai Mata Di Jewellers dated 21.11.2015 stating that the said bill was also not entered in the books as the same was lying with another partner, Shri Rajendra Jain who was on tour at the time of survey conducted in the assessee's case. The Assessing Officer (AO) verified the bill received from M/s Jai Mata Di Jewellers and found that it was a labour bill for 2717.400 gms net weight, @Rs.135 per gram and the total bill amount was Rs. 3,66,849/-. But the bill did not contain the details of date on which the gold was given to M/s Jai Mata Di Jewellers and there was no evidence of issue of the gold for making jewellery with ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the department has filed appeal before this Tribunal. During the appeal hearing, the Ld.DR argued that there was excess stock found during the course of survey for which the source was not explained by the assessee. The bill of M/s Jai Mata Di Jewellers dated 21.11.2015 produced by the assessee subsequently is an afterthought with an intention to adjust the difference and to evade the tax. Therefore, argued that the AO has rightly made the addition which should have been confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A). 5. On the other hand, the Ld.AR relied on the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and argued that, at the time of survey the assessee could not produce the bill since the partner was away on tour. No sooner the partner has arrived, the assessee has reconciled the stock position and on finding the fact that the receipt of jewellery from M/s Jai Mata Di Jewellers and the gold bars given for making 916 KDM jewellery was entered in the books and submitted the same before the AO. The Ld.AR further submitted that the purchase of gold bar and issue and receipt of gold jewellery are verifiable facts and genuine transactions. The Ld.AR further argued that survey u/s 133....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tors ignored? What the Assessing Officer would have considered reasonable? There is no dispute regarding the purchase of pure gold of 3,100 gms from M/s. SVBC, Visakhapatnam on 09.11.2015 and 13.11.2015. It is also not in dispute that jewellery weighing 2717.400 gms is physically available in the shop during the survey. The appellant had issued a bill for 3,100 gms to M/s.Jaimatadi Jewellers vide voucher 92 dt.14.11.2015 was not produced by the appellant during the survey. Besides, the appellant has also failed to produce the labour bill dt.21.11.2015 for manufacturing of gold jewellery weighing 2717.400 gms on the ground that the said bill was in the custody of one of the partners who was not present in the shop on the date of survey. Be that as it may, both M/s.B.G. Jewellers as well as M/s.Jaimatadi Jewellers bills were not traced during the survey and before arriving the excess stock. Upon enquiry, the appellant had produced bill of M/s. B.G. Jewellers before conclusion of survey. Thus, the Assessing Officer considered it genuine and reasonable. Whereas in the case of M/s.Jaimatadi Jewellers, the bills were not produced as they were not physically available in the premises.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....verification. The Assessing Officer had doubted the authenticity of the billdt.21.11.2015 without eliciting defects or infirmities in the bill. I have verified the ledger account of not only M/s.Jaimatadi Jewellers &M/s.B.G Jewellers but other parties where the issue of pure gold and equivalent weight of gold in new ornaments were recorded. None of the bills contain details of gold ornaments. Therefore, the method followed by the appellant is common for all manufacturers. The Assessing Officer's observation that the labour bill does not contain details of ornaments and probable date of return is of no importance. It is not a case where material, was not delivered by manufacturer without bill or vice-versa. If carrying the bill inadvertently proves to be detrimental, the Assessing Officer or survey party would have immediately verified the matter with manufacturer, whose details are very much in the possession of the Assessing Officer. If some inconsistencies of facts surface in that process, the issue would have been different. It appears Sri Rajendra Jain returned on 25.11.2015 and necessary entries were made in the books as there was time for finalising the books for the Asst. Ye....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... unsustainable. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the revenue on this ground. 7. Ground Nos. 4 and 5 are related to the deficit cash found in the business premises during the survey. The survey team found the physical cash balance of Rs. 22,65,000/- against the book balance of Rs. 34,24,906/- resulting in deficit cash of Rs. 11,59,906/- at the time of survey. The assessee was asked to explain the reason for deficit cash. The assessee explained that a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- was taken by the partner from the shop and kept in his residence and the balance amount of Rs. 3,59,906/- was miscellaneous cash available in the counter. The assessee further argued that the survey team has not inventorised the cash available in the counter. However, the assessee offered a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- as additional income on account of deficit cash. The AO during the assessment proceedings found that the assessee has made the cash entry of Rs. 9,17,200/- in the name of Mahendra Kumar Jain instead of Rs. 8,00,000/-. Since there was a mismatch in the explanation given by the assessee at the time of survey and in the books of accounts, the AO treated the deficit c....