TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 1312
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing to AO to delete the addition made towards unexplained cash credits u/s. 68 of the Act, of Rs. 1,86,18,353/-. The assessee, in its cross-objection, has raised the following grounds: - 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 9, Mumbai erred in affirming the action of the AO in confirming the addition made u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act in absence of any notice issued u/s. 142(1) r.w.s. 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), or warrant issued u/s. 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), or assets / documents requisitioned u/s. 132A. 2. He fail....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wellers. However, upon inquiry, these parties denied having placing any work order with the assessee. The statement of director of the assessee company was also recorded wherein it was submitted that the jewellery belonged to the assessee and the same was handed over for onward delivery. Accordingly, the assessee was directed to substantiate the same. 2.3 The assessee, vide reply dated 10/03/2016 reiterated that jewellery was handed over for onward delivery to following customers of the assessee: - No. Name of Customers Grams 1. Shajahans Jewellers,Nagercoil, Tamil Nadu 3097.400 2. Pereppadanas Gold Park, Neyyattinkara, Kerala 1443.210 3. Swasthikas Jewellers, Thiruvantmpuram, Kerala 1553.320 &nb....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... parties placed any work order of jewellery with the assessee. It was also noted that the 3 parties denied that the items in possession of Sh. Dhiraj Kumar belonged to them. In the above background, an aggregate amount of Rs. 186.18 Lacs comprising-off of gold jewellery for Rs. 183.18 Lacs and cash of Rs. 3 Lacs was treated as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 and added to the income of the assessee. 3.1 The assessee reiterated the submission before Ld. first appellate authority and contested the additions on legal grounds as well as on merits. The Ld. first appellate authority, while upholding the assessment proceedings, observed that the assessee was not provided with opportunity of cross-examination of the 3 parties, whose statements for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t Company as it was proved at the stage of criminal proceedings itself that the gold jewellery is not unaccounted. Further, as far as the source of such gold jewellery is concerned, I have also examined the sample letter placed in the paper book where the purchase party has confirmed having sold the gold to the Appellant Company out of which the impugned gold jewellery has been manufactured. Hence, the AO has fully verified the source of the gold jewellery. Once having proved that the gold jewellery is accounted for by the Court of Judicial Magistrate and that the source of such jewellery has been verified by the AO, there cannot be any ground for additions in the present case, u/s 68 of the Act. 6.3.7. As far the ground of the AO ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....merges from the record are that the gold jewellery which was intercepted by the Police Authorities under suspicious circumstances, has been declared by Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate as belonging to Sh. Dhiraj Kumar, the possessor thereof which is evident from the orders of Hon'ble court as placed on record. Nothing on record suggest that Sh. Dhiraj Kumar was not an employee of the assessee company and the said jewellery did not belong to assessee company. In fact, the statement of Sh. Dhiraj Kumar as well as the director of the assessee company, in unison, confirm the said facts. Proceeding further, the said jewellery was duly accounted for in the stock registers submitted by the assessee during assessment proceedings and the assessee produce....