TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (2) TMI 1464
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 39,45,052/- on account of suppressed of profit in the purchases made by the assessee. (ii) That the above addition has been confirmed arbitrarily estimating the profit percentage of 2% and 3% without there being any basis of the same. (iii) That the above addition has been confirmed rejecting the detailed submissions and explanations made by the assessee in this regard. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in. law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the AO has erred in making the addition without taking the enquiry initiated by him by issue of notices to a logical end. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee in ignoring the fact that the quantity purchased and sold being completely tallying, the allegation that the assessee has not made purchases cannot be sustained. 5. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....referred an appeal before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) vide order dated 31/07/2019, confirmed the addition of Rs. 39,45,052/- on account of suppressed of profit, confirmed the addition of Rs. 18,76,069/- on account of jewellery found during the course of search and further confirmed the disallowance of Rs. 2,00,000/- claimed as deduction by the assessee u/s 24(b) of the Act. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the above additions, the assessee has preferred the appeal in ITA No. 7995/Del/2019 and as against the deletion of the additions, the Revenue has preferred the appeal in ITA No. 8081/Del/2019 on the grounds mentioned above. 7. Ground No. 1 of the assessee is general in nature which requires no adjudication. 8. The issue involved in the Ground No. 2 to 4 of the Assessee's appeal and Ground No. 2 & 3 of the Revenue's appeal are in respect of the addition of unverified purchases, therefore, these grounds are dealt together. 9. In the year under consideration, the assessee made purchases of Rs. 1,25,43,40,731/-. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Ld. A.O. asked the assessee to submit the details in relation to all the purch....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecords and no adverse comment has been made by the Lower Authorities. Further, the sales made by the assessee have also been accepted by the Ld. A.O. there is no allegation or finding of the A.O. nor there is any information received from the Investigating Wing that the assessee has arranged any accommodation entry. It is further the case of the assessee that, the assessee has filed all the documents and no defect has been point out by the Lower Authorities. The books of account of the assessee are duly audited. The creditors were either paid current or subsequent year and further contended that all the payments have been made through banking channel, therefore, the CIT(A) has committed an error in sustaining the above said addition. 13. It is not in dispute that out of twenty creditors, three creditors have not been identified and the additions have been made. To meet the ends of justice, we are of the opinion if the assessee is provided with an opportunity to produce the three parties before the A.O. who have been treated as unverified by the A.O. during the remand proceedings and direct the A.O. to decide the same on merit, the substantial justice will be rendered. Accordingl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... status of Ms. Meenu Malhotra, and residing address, statements etc., rejected the contention of the assessee in following manners :- "56.6. It is a fact that Ms. Meenu Malhotra is married daughter of the appellant. She staying at Bhiwani. As stated above, during the present proceedings, the AR was asked to state if in any of the statements recorded during the search, any mention was made to the effect that any part of Jewellery found belonged to Ms. Meenu Malhotra. The AR answered in negative. Also, the perusal of valuation reports prepared in respect of Jewllary found at the residence, It is seen that the -valued(found) jewellery was stated to be belonging to Smt. Shivani Malhotra. Sanjay. Malhotra and Poonam Malhotra. As per statement of Sh. Pradeep Malhotra dated 13.01.2017, the family members have been stated to be Sh. Pradeep Malhotra, Smt Poonam Malhotra, Sh. Sanjay Malhotra and Smt. Shivani Malhotra and the Jewellery in bank lockers have been stated to be belonging to these above said four family members. It is noteworthy that nowhere, the appellant mentioned name of Ms. Meenu Malhotra. During the present appellate proceedings, in this regard, as mentioned earlier,....