TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (2) TMI 1532
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fter referred as the Act). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a small businessman and derived income from sale and purchase of gold and silver jewellery. The return of income of the year under consideration was filed on 31/07/2010 declaring total income of Rs. 2,96,630/-. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had purchased in cash gold and silver for Rs. 40,90,805/- in the assessment year 2010-11. On being asked from the assessee, he filed explanation, which was not accepted by the Assessing Officer and thus addition of Rs. 40,90,805/- was made. 3. The ld. CIT(A) after hearing the submissions of both the parties, has deleted the addition by holding as under:- "5.3.2 I have considered the above ment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee is not eligible for section 44AD or the business undertaken by the assessee is not the eligible business under section 44AD of the Act. Since, the appellant is fulfilling all the necessary conditions under section 44AD of the Act, the benefit of section 44AD cannot be denied to the Assessee. Even during the course of survey operation under section 133 A of the Act, no additional sale/purchase were noticed and the gross receipts of Rs.47,48,300/- declared in the return of income was not disputed. It would be worthwhile to mention here that in the assessee own case for preceding years, on the similar issue (when the assessee declared the income under section 44AF of the Act, which is no longer available in the statute fro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng Officer. At the outset, the ld AR of the assessee has submitted that the similar issue was decided by the Hon'ble ITAT (SMC) Jaipur Bench in assessee's own case for the assessment year 2006-07 and 2007-08 vide its orders dated 12/04/2015 and 20/10/2016 passed in ITA Nos. 734/JP/2015 and 542/JP/2016 in favour of the assessee. Therefore, he prayed to allow the appeal of the assessee. 5. I have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. From perusal of records, it transpires that the issue under consideration has already been decided by the Coordinate Bench of the ITAT in assessee's own case vide its orders dated 12/04/2015 and 20/10/2016 passed in ITA Nos. 734/JP/2015 and 542/JP/201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee and thus it is clear the case of the assessee is clearly covered by Rule 6DD(g) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 inasmuch as the exceptional circumstances specified thereunder existed in the case of assessee and that being so, no addition u/s 40A(3) of the Act could have been made. Reliance is placed by the ld. AR of the assessee as under:- (i) PACL India Ltd. vs. ACIT , 38 DTR 1 (Jaipur ) (ii) CIT vs. Interseas, 40 DTR 143 (Ker.) (iii) Shree Salasar Overseas v DCIT 107 DTR 225 (Jaipur) 2.6 The ld. DR is heard. 2.7 I have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. Respectfully following the decision of ITAT Ahemdabad Bench in the case of Gopalsingh R Rajpurohit ....