Case Law Details
It was contended that the assessee accepted the undisclosed income to the tune of Rs. 20 lacs on account of shortage of gold ornaments and excess of stock of silver.
The facts, in brief, are that a survey u/s 133A of the Act was carried out at the business premises of the assessee. As per the Revenue, an amount of Rs. 20 lacs was accepted as undisclosed income by the assessee on account of shortage of gold ornaments weighing 758.475 gms and excess stock of silver at 91.134 kms. The claim of the assessee is that the assessee duly disclosed a sum of Rs.7,42,872/- by crediting it to the profit and loss account with respect to shortage in gold jewellery. The learned Assessing Officer did not accept the plea of the assessee on the ground that if the assessee was aware of transfer of stock to Abhushan Jewellers, how and why this fact was not disclosed while recording the statement during survey proceedings. The impugned addition of Rs. 12,57,128/- was, therefore, made.
On appeal before the learned CIT(A), it was claimed by the assessee that during survey physical inventory of gold and silver ornaments and also of cash was prepared by the survey party and gold ornaments weighing 1439.280 gms, silver ornaments weighing 1135.134 kms and cash amounting to Rs. 3,06,585/- were found. There is uncontroverted finding in the impugned order that the learned CIT(A) duly verified different silver accounts which were submitted by the assessee during survey and the Assessing Officer overlooked the stock of silver/silver ornaments copies of which were made available at the time of survey. The correct excess stock of silver was 71.295 kms valued at Rs.7,40,515/- which was offered by the assessee in its profit and loss account. We are also in agreement with the finding of the learned CIT(A) that so far as the shortage in gold ornaments is concerned, only profit embedded in the sale can be taken as income of the assessee. There is further uncontroverted finding that correct difference of income has been offered by the assessee in its profit and loss account. In view of these facts, we find no infirmity in the conclusion drawn in the impugned order. It is affirmed.
