TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 1342
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....usiness under the name of M/s. Laxmi Prasanna Jewellers. There was a survey operation u/s 133A on 7.11.2012 in the presence of the husband and two sons of the assessee who were effectively conducting the business on behalf of the assessee. During the survey, an excess stock of gold/ornaments weighing 2803.082 grams of gold and 99.114 grams of diamond jewellery was found. The value of such excess stock was about Rs. 83,01,000/. At the time of survey, the husband of the assessee gave a statement admitting that there was excess stock of gold and diamond jewellery worth about Rs. 83,01,000/- and it was an additional income in the hands of the assessee who happens to be the proprietor of the business. Again, the husband of the assessee stated on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... such an action of the learned Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT (A) expressing grievance that no proper opportunity of being heard was given to her and the search was not conducted with the knowledge of the assessee. The assessee subsequently challenged the addition of Rs. 27,34,929/- covered by three bills produced by the husband of the assessee stating that not accepting such bills giving credit thereto is not correct on the part of the Assessing Officer. 7. Learned CIT (A) on an appraisal of the evidence before him was of the view that the three bills produced by the husband of the assessee for a total amount of Rs. 27,34,929/- cannot be brushed aside because the payment under those bills was throu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the law does not require that the survey must be conducted in the presence of the owner of the business alone and it requires the presence of proprietor or the employee or any other person carrying on such business or profession. Consequently, he submitted that, as rightly observed by the learned Assessing Officer, at the first opportunity when the assessee filed the letter dated 18.12.2014, the assessee questioned the authority of her husband to make any statement binding her but she does not dispute the fact of survey or the evidence of any excess stock worth Rs. 83,01,000/- at that time. Further, the issue relating to the valuation of property was not raised by the assessee at any stage of the proceedings and nothing prevented the asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....though the assessee challenged the authority of her husband to give any statement binding her, did not dispute the fact of survey or the findings of any excess stock during that survey worth Rs. 83,01,000/-. Even at that time also, the assessee did not plead about the errors, if any, in the valuation of jewellery or that part of excess stock contains the gold ornaments received from or being given by certain customers for repairs/re-modelling available in the shop. Even during the appeal before us also, no details of such customers or the gold ornaments attributable to them are produced. 12. There was a time gap of more than 3 ½ years between the survey operation and the assessee giving her statement before the Income Tax Authoritie....