Case Law Details
ITO Vs Govinda Jewellers (ITAT Visakhapatnam)
The admitted facts are that the assessee admitted unaccounted sales of Rs. 3,10,69,693/- made during the period 6/11/2016 to 8/11/2016 at the time of survey u/s. 133A of the Act. The Assessing Officer has made an assessment that this amount of sales is out of the separate unaccounted purchases made by the assessee and therefore the assessee had agreed to admit this amount at the time of survey. We note from the records available before us that there is no material evidence for the unaccounted purchases for effecting the sales of Rs. 3 Crores that was found during the time of survey. Further, the survey team has found a deficit stock of 696.787 grams at the time of survey which includes the unaccounted sales admitted by the assessee for 8786.872 grams. The assessee also admitted that this cash sales amount was deposited into the bank account and alongwith the balance available in the bank account, the assessee has utilized for the purchases of 10.3 Kgs of bullion from SVBV Gold and RK Gold. The explanation of the Ld. AR that the payments were made through bank account and the purchases were disclosed and included in the stock, in the books of account, cannot be denied. We also observe that these purchases were made before the date of survey i.e on 25.11.2016.
Therefore, we are of the view that the purchases are already recorded in the books of account and also accounted for in the stock of gold at the time of survey, and we note that only the sale of 8786.872 grams amounting to Rs. 3,10,69,393/- remains unaccounted in the books of account at the time of survey. We disagree with the contention of the Ld. AO that there are unaccounted purchases for making these unaccounted sales based on the fact that if unaccounted purchases are included in the stock at the time of survey the deficit stock would have been far more higher than 696.787 grams at the time of survey. In view of the above findings, we are of the considered view that a separate addition of unaccounted sales is not required. If the assessee did not adhere to the surrender made during the survey, it was for the AO to bring on record cogent material or other evidence to support the additions rather than rely on the statements simpliciter. We do not find any cogent material or other evidence brought in by AO to support the admissions made during survey. In view of the above, we find that there is no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and no interference is required on this ground.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM
This appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-1, Visakhapatnam in appeal no.10488/2019-20/CIT(A)-
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
