TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 981
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng out of the assessment order dated 08.12.2019 u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') passed by the AO, for AY: 2012-13. 2. Heard and perused the records. The assessee is a non-banking financial company. In this case, return declaring business income of Rs. 8,04,59,896/- was filed on 29.09.2012. The assessment order u/s 143(3) was finalised on 2602.2015 on an assessed income of Rs. 9,27,97,1 10/-. Subsequently, information was received from Asst. Director of Income Ta. (Inv.), Unit-4(2), Mumbai vide letter dated 04.082017 that M/S Gyan Enterprises P Ltd. had paid an amount of Rs. ...in cash against the purchase of Diamond jewellery i.e. 16 carat yellow ctr. stone diamond ring during FY. 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... above the sale consideration recorded by the assessee group in its books of account. The A.O relied on several statements of various key persons in support of the above, in which the specific details and modus operandi were admitted, and has reproduced the relevant extracts in the assessment order. 2.3 During the course of survey proceedings, an excel file containing details of jewellery sold from April 2016 to 31-03-2017 was found from the laptop of Mr. Saurabh Shah which contained the details of jewellery sold both at the Mumbai and Delhi store and also included the mode of payment. The A.O has reproduced the relevant extracts of the statement in his order. As from the details in the excel sheet AO observed that a 16 ct Yellow Ctr Sto....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... cash. Accordingly, the A.O made an addition of Rs 70,00,000 /s 69B of the Act. Same was sustained by the ld. CIT(A) for which assessee is in appeal raising following grounds; "1. That the re-opening of the assessment for AY 2012-13 u/s 147 for reassessment of all facts disclosed in the assessment u/s 143(3) is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. The reopening of completed assessment is bad in law and requires to be set aside. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned A.O has erred in making additions u/s 69B on account of jewellery purchase alleging that Rs. 70 lakhs has been paid in cash. 3. No documentary evidence of Rs. 70 lakhs payment to Nirav Modi is given to the Appellant, ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... However, no such effort was made by the AO to get valuation of ring got done so as to establish that certainly ring was worth more than Rs. 1,00,00,000 paid by cheque and remaining component must have been by cash as no prudent person would sell an item of jewelry for loss. However, as the initial burden was on assessee, it was assessee who should have rebutted the evidence relied by AO, by showing that valuation of jewelry was Rs. 1,00,00,000 as paid by cheque and there would have been no occasion to pay anything more by way of cash. 6. Then what we find is that investment of undisclosed income was found in the form of 'on money' allegedly paid by the assessee but for which the record was found in and with the Nirav Modi/Firestar Grou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... cash or combinations thereof. Statements of key persons were recorded to confirm the modus operendi adopted. Excel sheets were found which gave the precise details about the cash payments made by clients for the purchases. It was in this connection that it was found that the appellant Gyan Enterpirses had purchased a 16 carat yellow diamond ring and paid Rs 70,00,000 in cash. The Nirav Modi group indulged in cash receipts for multiple customers and clients of which the assessee was only one. There is no indication that the investigations were aimed solely and only targeted the appellant but instead it is clear that they were generic in nature. The investigations were targeted at the Nirav Modi group to unearth the malpractice of unaccounte....