TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (6) TMI 798
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....143(3) r.w.s 250(6) of the Act for the AY 2017-18. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of running a jewellery shop. A survey operation U/s. 133A took place on 25/11/2016 at the business premises of the assessee and the assessee agreed to admit the following as additional incomes: 1. Unexplained purchase of 10.3 Kgs of Gold Bullion Rs. 3,18,00,830 2. Unaccounted sales Rs. 3,00,00,000 3. Gross Profit @ 12.5% on deficit stock Rs. 2.71,092 Rs. 6,20,71,442 The assessee filed its return of income for the AY 2017-18 on 30/10/2017 admitting a total income of Rs.3,19,46,630/-. 3. However, while filing the return of income the assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... facts admitted the additional ground. Based on the submissions made by the assessee's representative, the Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. 6. 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. 3,00,00,000 admitted by the assessee in its return of income filed U/s. 139(1) of the Act ignoring and not appreciating the fact that the assessee has offered the above income after taking into consideration al the impugned materials vis-à-vis books of account which is evident from its submission at the time of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the fact that assessee has stressed many times at the time of assessment proceedings that they have admitted the additional incomes as per the correct disclosures arrived after working out the figures with reference to the figures borne on record and books of account. 8. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2.13 Crs made by the AO towards difference in income admitted at the time of survey and income admitted by the assessee in its return of income filed U/s. 139(1) of the IT Act ignoring and not appreciating the fact that the assessee has offered the above income only after detection of unaccounted loose slips and statement recorded from 4 different goldsmiths wherein they have contradicted the claim of the assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....represents the amount of Rs. 3 Crores. The Ld. AR argued that since the amount of Rs. 3 Crores has been admitted by the assessee and accounted in books, the same sales was wrongly added oonce gain in the Assessment Order and it amounts to double taxation and pleaded that it may be deleted. The Ld. AR also relied on the case of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Khader Khan Son 352 ITR 480 (SC) wherein it was held that section 133A does not empower Income Tax Authority or any person of them and the statement recorded under that section has no evidentiary value and cannot be made as a basis for the addition. On the other hand, Ld. DR argued that Rs. 3 Crores represents the unaccounted sales in addition to the admission made by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the books of account, cannot be denied. We also observe that these purchases were made before the date of survey i.e on 25.11.2016. Therefore, we are of the view that the purchases are already recorded in the books of account and also accounted for in the stock of gold at the time of survey, and we note that only the sale of 8786.872 grams amounting to Rs. 3,10,69,393/- remains unaccounted in the books of account at the time of survey. We disagree with the contention of the Ld. AO that there are unaccounted purchases for making these unaccounted sales based on the fact that if unaccounted purchases are included in the stock at the time of survey the deficit stock would have been far more higher than 696.787 grams at the time of survey. In v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... allowed this additional ground of the assessee, and hence the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 11. Grounds No.4 and 6 raised by the Revenue are with respect to addition of Rs. 3,10,00,000/- as per the income returned by the assessee at the time survey u/s. 133A of the Act. The Ld. AR argued that this amounts to double taxation ie., once on the basis of unaccounted sales for Rs. 3.10,69,693/- and again taxing the same amount based on the admission by the assessee during the survey proceedings is not valid in law. Per contra, the Ld. DR argued that the assessee made separate purchase for their unaccounted sales and pleaded to uphold the order of the Ld. AO. We have considered the rival contentions and we disagree with the conten....