TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 613
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....IT(A)-1/VSP/2020-21, dated 18/09/2020 for the A.Y.2017-18 arising out of the order passed by the AO u/sec. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- "1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 44,92,394/- towards unexplained purchases from Giriraj Jewellers, made by the assessing officer by holding that the Assessing officer ought to have enquire into the matter to examine the genuineness of the bills, where the Assessing officer has clearly established the bogus nature of the bills. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 26,34,505/- toward....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,79,000/- in the assessee's bank account No.0106111000189 with Andhra Bank, Dwarakanagar, Visakhapatnam. A statement u/sec. 131 was recorded from the Managing Partner Mr. M.Nagabhusan Rao on 14/03/2017 & 17/03/2017. Mr. M.Nagabhusan Rao in response to the question No.14 accepted that "we are unable to reconcile the stock as both of us don't have perfect knowledge about the purchase bills and also in accounting. Therefore, for the time being, I have voluntarily admitted the value of excess stock i.e. Rs. 1,07,14,133/- as unaccounted/unexplained expenditure in the hands of the firm for the F.Y. 2016-17 relevant to the A.Y. 2017-18". The details of the of valuation of excess stock as agreed by Mr. M.Nagabhusan Rao are as under:- Item Differ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....submissions before the ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) by considering the written submissions filed by the assessee and relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Khader Khan Son [(2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC)] partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee by observing as under:- "6.1 .......... In this case, it was categorically held that a statement recorded u/s 133A of the Act has no evidentiary value and cannot be taken as the basis for addition. Therefore, I shall proceed to examine the sustainability of various additions made by the AO de hors the admission made at the time of survey u/sec. 133A of the Act." 5. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. 6. Ground Nos.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s were consecutively numbered. I found that the supplier Giriraj Jewellers is a registered dealer and raised a tax invoice charging VAT on the value of purchases. In case, the Assessing Officer had any doubt about the genuineness of these bills, he ought to have enquired into the matter to examine the genuineness of the bills. Without any such effort, the Assessing Officer is not justified in discarding the valid evidence filed by the appellant I do not find any merit in the action of the assessing officer. This addition of Rs. 40,84,656 is directed to be deleted. 6.4 Ground no.(4): This ground is directed against the addition of Rs. 26,34,505 towards purchases from UV Jewellers. The appellant submitted the purchase bills and the confirma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt. We find force in the submissions of the ld.AR and by respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we concur with the findings of the ld.CIT(A) i.e. statement recorded u/sec. 131A has no evidentiary value and cannot be taken as basis for addition. 11. Regarding ground Nos. 5 & 6, ld.AR argued that it is the business of the assessee to buy old gold and in exchange of new gold which is termed as 6A purchases. Ld.AR also demonstrated before us that 6A purchases have been disclosed in the VAT returns of the assessee. 12. Ld.DR, however, argued that 6A purchases and sales were not matching and hence, it cannot be accepted. 13. We have heard both the parties and considered the material available before us. The ld.CI....