TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (9) TMI 186
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the assessee in the Form No. 36 but the assessee has not responded to the notices issued by the Tribunal. Accordingly, we propose to hear and dispose of these cross appeals and cross objection ex parte. The Department and assessee has raised the following grounds in their cross appeals:- Department 1. The Ld. CIT (A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the assessee himself has failed to produce any genuine documents related to claim of purchase through four fills of M/s. Pushpa enterprises during the survey proceedings. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has failed to appreciate the fact that during the survey proceedings, it was fond that the assessee had not recorded these purchase related to M/s. Pushpa enterprises amounting to Rs. 3,94,50,90/- in his books of accounts and also failed to furnish any explanation in this respect. 3. The Ld. CIT (A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the asessee himself has admitted in statement taken on oath recorded u/s 131 of I.T. Act, 1961 that he is unable to explain the source of the excess stock found during the survey proceedings. 4. The Ld. CIT (A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the assessee himself....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... erred in the maintaining a part of sum of Rs. 1,40,42,470/- out of the addition of Rs. 1,62,73,339/- made by the assessing officer alleging unexplained gold and silver ornament ignoring the correct purity which is highly unjustified, illegal and against the law hence same is liable to be deleted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The commission of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in upholding a part of addition of Rs. 1,40,42,470/- made on account of alleged unexplained jewellery without considering the submission/plea of the appellant and without any supportive materials brought on record which is incorrect, unfair and against law, hence the addition so made and maintained is liable to be deleted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. That in any view of the matter certain gold and silver items were received by the appellant on his family partition which is not the amount of undisclosed stock of gold and silver items but the same were also considered by the assessing officer on the basis of valuation report on the date of the survey which is unjustified and illegal the same is not liable to be taxed in the light of observation of the CIT(A) in l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... he received Gold of 3478 Kg 520 Gms and Silver of 38 Kg 790 Gms on family partition. The CIT(A) has granted part relief to the assessee by the deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 3,94,50,903/- as well as directed the Assessing Officer to consider the facts as explained by the assessee while giving the effect to the appellate order and take necessary action as per law. Thus, the CIT(A) has granted substantial relief to the extent of addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of undisclosed stock which was explained by the assessee by producing four bills of M/s Pushpa Enterprises, Agra. Therefore, both the assessee as well as department have filed these cross appeals challenging the order of the CIT(A). 3. Before us the learned DR has submitted that the CIT(A) considered the additional evidence of Wealth Tax Return as well as other documents in the appellate proceedings without giving an opportunity of hearing to the Assessing Officer therefore, there is a violation of principles of natural justice in terms of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. In this respect, the learned CIT DR has referred to ground no. 6 of Revenue's appeal and contended that Rev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lared income to the extent of Rs. 1,70,82,009/- on account of undisclosed stock by reducing the value of the undisclosed Gold Jewellery of 18 Kg 45 Gms amounting to Rs. 3,94,50,903/- in view of the four invoices issued by the M/s Pushpa Enterprises, Agra. The Assessing Officer in the assessment proceedings has rejected the explanation of the assessee of purchases made vide alleged four invoices of Pushpa Enterprises, Agra and consequently made an addition of Rs. 3,94,50,903/-. Apart from this, the Assessing Officer also made addition in respect of the remaining Gold and Silver Jewellery at a differential amount of Rs. 1,62,73,339/- as the assessee has disclosed the income on account of undisclosed stock only at Rs. 1,70,80,009/-. 5. The CIT(A) while deleting the addition of Rs. 3,94,50,903/- has accepted the explanation of the assessee based on these four bills issued by M/s Pushpa Enterprises, Agra and also held that there is no incriminating material found during the course of survey. The relevant part of the finding of the CIT(A) at page 25 of the impugned order is as under:- "I have perused the order of the A.O. facts of the case and arguments given by appellant. Ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of 18Kg.45 Gms Gold allegedly purchased from M/s Pushpa Enterprises, Agra. The CIT(A) has not given a conclusive finding but the issue is set aside to the record of the Assessing Officer and that too with a direction to consider the various facts which were explained by the assessee during the appellate proceedings. The CIT(A) has passed the impugned order by accepting the evidences as well as the explanation of the assessee without calling a remand report from AO. The relevant part of the finding of the CIT(A) on this second issue is as under:- "It is seen from the assessment order that AO has given the credit to the appellant of the stock disclosed in his capital account of gold jewellery at Rs. 1,50,23,344/- and of Silver jewellery at Rs. 20,58,665/- aggregating to Rs. 1,70,82,009/- and added the difference amount of Rs. 1,62,73,339/- (3,33,55,348- 1,70,82,009) on account of undisclosed stock u/s 69 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Appellant has brought on records a plea in his submission that Gold of 3478 kg 520 gms and silver 38 kg 790 gm was received by him on family partition that was left out while making the statement. Same is being ignored as not related to these grounds o....