TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 151
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to assail the impugned additions. In support, reference has been made to various documents as placed in the paper-book. The Ld. CIT-DR also advanced arguments supporting the orders of lower authorities. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records, the appeal is disposed-off as under. Assessment Proceedings 3. The assessee-group was subjected to search action by the department on 04-11-2022. The assessee acted as a proprietor of M/s HB Foods which is stated to be engaged in food and hospitality business. The assessee belongs to Himgiri Beverages group of case. Subsequent to search action, the case was centralized vide order u/s 127 dated 28-07-2023. The assessee filed its return of income u/s 139(1) on 09-10-2023 at Rs. 25.66 Lacs which was subjected to scrutiny proceedings vide notice u/s 143(2) dated 25-06-2024.In the assessment order, Ld. AO made certain additions which are subject matter of dispute before us. 3.1 Profit on Unaccounted Sales 3.1.1 During search at business premises of M/s HB Foods, it was observed that various bills were not recorded in regular Tally data. The statement of assessee's son Shri Himansh Aggarwal was recorded. The Ld. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... sales in POS as stock is required to be reduced. The stock transfer is not sale but mere transfer of stock and therefore, the discrepancy to that extent stood explained. Lastly, Tally data was not updated at the time of search whereas POS sales was recorded on real time basis which was the fact stated by the assessee at the time of search. The assessee thus filed reconciliation statement as under: - No. Particulars Amount (Rs.) 1. Cumulative Sales As per notice 672.78 Lacs 2. Less: Restaurant POS sales as already reflected in cash counter POS 94.82 Lacs Sub-value 577.95 Lacs 3. Less: GST included in POS but not in Tally 34.94 Lacs Sub-value 543.01 Lacs 4. Less: Stock Transfer to sister concerns (at cost) 46.40 Lacs Sub-value 496.60 Lacs 5. Less: Difference in cost & MRP on transfer to sister concern 27.04 Lacs Sub-value 469.55 Lacs 6. Remaining Difference (due to sales not updated in Tally on the date of search Rs.97,656/- 3.1.4 However, Ld. AO rejected the arguments of the assessee on the ground that no such plea was taken at the time of search. No evi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt question, in this regard, as posed to Smt. Pooja Aggarwal during search proceedings and her reply in recorded statement was as under: - Q.11 During rummaging at your house gold Jewellery, Diamond Jewellery and silver utensils were found. The valuation of this jewellery was done by registered value in your presence. Please acknowledge the same. The details of total jewellery and utensils found are as follows: S.No. Description Net Weight Value 1. Gold Jewellery 3011.150 Grams Rs.1,56,57,980/- 2. Diamond Jewellery 366.870 Grams equivalent of gold wt. Rs.19,07,725/- 3. Silver Utensils 32.630 Kg Rs.13,23,685/- Ans. Ma'm, I acknowledge that this jewellery was found while rummaging during the search at my house and its valuation is correct. Majority of this jewellery belongs to me and some part of it belongs to my mother-in-law, father-in-law, husband and children. Some ornaments have been given to us by JIA Diamonds for approval basis in order to select and finalize design. The silver utensils are old ancestral utensils. These have been passed on to from generations and are used for special festive occasions. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....67 Lacs (including jewellery kept against gold loan as taken from SBI). The Bank Locker held in the joint name of the assessee as well as Shri Bharat Aggarwal was found to be last operated on 07-03-2020. The same was agreed to be considered in the name of the assessee. Smt. Pooja Aggarwal obtained gold loan of Rs. 50 Lacs on 25-01-2021 against pledge of 1473 grams of jewellery. The same was valued by the bank on 22-01-2021 at Rs. 70.99 Lacs. This jewellery was considered for non-seizure as per CBDT instruction no. 1916 dated 11- 05-1994. As per statement of Smt. Pooja Aggarwal, this jewellery was stated to be received by her at the time of her marriage and purchased out of past savings. However, no documentary evidence on source of acquisition was filed. Therefore, the same was to be considered in her hands for AY 2021-22. The value of jewellery which was to be considered for addition for this year was as follows: - No. Description Net Weight Value 1. Gold Jewellery 3011.150 Grams Rs.1,56,57,980/- 2. Diamond Jewellery 366.870 Grams equivalent of gold wt. Rs.19,07,725/- 3. Silver Utensils 32.630 Kg Rs.13,23,885/- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... take up the issue of profit on unrecorded sales. The allegation of Ld. AO primarily stem from the fact that the sales figures as reported by the assessee in regular Tally Data and the sales figures as reported in POS Cash / Restaurant counter & bills books found during search proceedings differ in value. The total sales as mentioned in Tally data for the period April, 2022 to October, 2022 was Rs. 468.57 Lacs as against sales of Rs. 672.78 Lacs as mentioned in POS main cash counter, POS restaurant counter and GST bill book leaving a gap of Rs. 204.20 Lacs. In recorded statement, the assessee accepted the discrepancy but stated that the difference arose since Tally Data was not updated. There is no admission of any out-of-book sales by the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee sought reconciliation of the discrepancy as under: - No. Particulars Amount (Rs.) 1. Cumulative Sales As per notice 672.78 Lacs 2. Less: Restaurant POS sales as already reflected in cash counter POS 94.82 Lacs Sub-value 577.95 Lacs 3. Less: GST included in POS but not in Tally 34.94 Lacs Sub-value 543.01 Lacs ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-transfer would not constitute sales for the assessee and the same could not lead to a conclusion of unrecorded sales in the hands of the assessee. Considering totality of facts and circumstances of the case, we would hold that the assessee had substantially discharged its onus to reconcile the impugned differences. On these facts, we direct Ld. AO to restrict impugned addition to lumpsum amount of Rs. 5 Lacs as 'business income' to plug possible leakage of revenue. The remaining addition stands deleted. The corresponding ground stand partly allowed. 7. Similarly, on the cash difference of Rs. 22.27 Lacs as computed by Ld. AO, it could be noted that the assessee, in the recorded statement, stated that the cash was generated from cash sales from three shops situated at Panchkula, Peer Muchalla and Zirakpur. Out of cash found for Rs. 42.81 Lacs, the credit of available net cash-in-hand in the books of three concerns was granted to the assessee and finally, impugned addition of Rs. 22.27 Lacs was made in the hands of the assessee and his wife. However, during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee furnished updated cash book of three concerns reflecting cash-in-hand on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....val basis from M/s JIA Diamonds against security of loan given by associated entity M/s AFPL. The assessee also furnished gift deed with respect to 5 gold coins of 100 grams each from his maternal grandmother on the occasion of marriage of assessee's son Shri Bharat Aggarwal. However, no enquiry is shown to have been carried out by Ld. AO from the donor and the gift deed has been rejected merely on the ground that the same was a mere after-thought. The assessee also furnished various purchase bills from Tanishq as well as bills of Shri Ram Jewellers during the course of assessment proceedings. The assessee also furnished challans of M/s Jai Diamonds evidencing that the jewellery was received on approval basis against loan advanced by M/s AFPL. All these documents / bills have been rejected without any sound logic on the ground that there was discrepancy in the same. However, the veracity of these documents has not been verified by Ld. AO and no independent enquiry is shown to have been made thereupon to refute the claim of the assessee. When the assessee has duly filed these documents, the onus of the assessee stood discharged and it was the onus of Ld. AO to rebut the claim of the....