TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 982
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....peals)- 29, is arbitrary, biased and bad in law and facts of the case in so far as it confirms the additions made by the Assessing Officer. 2) That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in confirming the additions of Rs. 1.50 crores under section 69A as income from un-disclosed sources being the amount kept in the safe custody of Sh. Vinod on incorrect appreciation of the explanation offered by the assessee which addition is not sustainable in law and facts of the case. 3) That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax has grossly erred in holding that the addition of Rs. 1.27 Crores made by the Assessing Officer for unexplained stock since belonged to M/ s. HP and Sons be considered in the hands of M/ s. H P and Sons ignoring the requisite documentary evidences filed explaining the availability of stock with M/ s. H P and Sons after having deleted the substantive addition in the hands of the assessee. 4) That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax has grossly erred in directing the department to examine on substantive basis the addition of Rs. 1,54,48,608/-made under section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE for the stock of 6 kg gold in the ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4,59,946/- and disallowance of hedging loss of Rs. 22,48,580/- in question. Learned CIT(A) on the other hand has granted part relief to the assessee which leaves both these parties aggrieved who have filed their respective cross appeals before the tribunal. 5. It is in this factual backdrop that we first of all advert to the learned CIT(A)'s detailed discussion partly upholding the Assessing Officer's action adding the above cash seized of Rs. 7,78,50,000/- reading as under: "Findings: 3.4 From the facts of the case it is seen that a cash of Rs. 4,78,50,000/-was found at the premises of M/ S Supreme Gold during the course of search. During the course of search, the statements of employees of appellant, Sh. Pintoo Dubey, Sh. Halash Yadav and also the Appellant were recorded. In his statement, the employee Sh. Pintoo Dubey stated the cash at Rs. 1.50 Cr to be received from Sh. Vinod as an advance while the remaining cash was stated to be received from four parties from the sale of gold. However the date of sale and quantative sold is not clear from statement. Another employee, Sh. Halash Yadav in his statement confirmed that he brought the cash of Rs. 1.5....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... it had explained the source of cash found at premise as under: 3.7 During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant had submitted a copy of cash book in support of the cash in hand indicating that the closing cash in hand as on 17.07.2015 was 2,11,30,357/-. Appellant had also provided a quantitative tally of the stock in his concern M/s Supreme Gold. From the perusal of stock register, it is seen that on 15.07.2015, a purchase of 22,000 gms. of gold has been made, further, on 17.07.2015, purchase of 15,000 gms. of gold has been made. Appellant has submitted a copy of invoices dated 15.07.2015 and 17.07.2015 raised by HHEC and copy of delivery challans dated 15.07.2015 and 17.07.2015 in support of his claim which were forwarded to AO for examination under Rule 46A. This amount of purchase also seems to tally with the details gathered during the survey as observed from the statement of appellant recorded during the course of survey as under: 3.8 The purchase of 37 Kg. of gold by the appellant seems to be established. From the quantitative details of stock submitted in appellate proceedings, it is seen that the entire stock of gold was sold between 15.07.20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....examined in the hands of HP and Sons since it has been found to be operating from same premises. No evidence or observation contrary to the statement of the appellant regarding ownership of cash with M/ s HP & Sons has been brought on records during the course of assessment proceedings and remand proceedings. Therefore, the addition of cash on a substantive basis can only be made in the hands of M/s HP & Sons after considering the explanation offered by it and not in the hands of the appellant. The addition made at Rs. 1.27 Cr. in the hands of appellant is accordingly not sustainable and is deleted 3.13 Regarding the remaining cash of 1.50 Cr, appellant has claimed it to be generated from sales of Jaipur branch of M/s HP and sons and was handed over to Sh. Vinod for safe custody. During the course of assessment proceedings, or even during the remand and appellate proceedings, no evidences were filed in support of this contention. Sh. Vinod has not been produced for examination or his particulars revealed for verification by AO. Under these circumstances the explanation regarding cash of 1.50 Cr is not convincing and acceptable. Accordingly, addition made a Rs. 1.50 Cr. u/s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stock and 6 kg. gold involving Rs. 1.27 crores and Rs. 1,54,48,608/-; respectively, learned counsel could hardly dispute that the CIT(A) herein has very fairly directed the same to be assessed in the name of M/s. HP & Sons (supra). Meaning thereby, that the assessee herein Sh. Pawan Kumar Agarwal has already been granted relief on both these issues in the CIT(A)'s lower appellate findings. That being the case, we find no merit in the assessee's instant latter twin substantive grounds which are rejected in very terms. This assessee's appeal ITA No. 3658/Del/2023 is partly allowed. 10. Next comes the Revenue's former twin substantive grounds seeking to revive unexplained cash or Rs. 3.32 crores and 6 kg gold value of Rs. 1,54,58,608/-; respectively. Learned CIT(DR) could hardly dispute that the CIT(A)'s above extracted detailed discussion has already considered the entire relevant facts whilst accepting the assessee's explanation of having filed entire detailed evidence regarding purchase of 37 Kg gold as emanating from the case records. This is indeed coupled with the fact that he has further directed the Assessing Officer to assess M/s. HP & Sons qua the ....