M/s Agrawal Jewellers, Bhopal V. The ACIT, 2 (1), Bhopal

CO 56/IND/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7447 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 19-06-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 21-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S S DESH
• Assessee Lawyers: KESHAVE SAXENA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Document seized; Documents seized
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A NO.86/IND/2012 A.Y. 2008-09 ACIT-2(1), BHOPAL ..APPELLANT V/S. M/S. AGRAWAL JEWELLERS, BHOPAL PAN AAFFA 7758 N ..RESPONDENT AND, CROSS-OBJECTION NO.56/IND/2012 (ARISING OUT OF IT(SS)A NO.86/IND/2012) A.Y. 2008-09 M/S. AGRAWAL JEWELLERS, BHOPAL PAN AAFFA 7758 N ..OBJECTOR V/S. ACIT-2(1), BHOPAL ..RESPONDENT REVENUE BY SHRI KESHAVE SAXENA, CIT/DR REVENUE BY SHRI S.S. DESHPANDE, CA DATE OF HEARING 18.06.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 19.06.2012 2 ORDER PER JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER THE REVENUE AS WELL AS THE ASSESSEE ARE AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.1.2012, PASSED BY THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, BHOPAL. FIRST, WE SHAL L TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE WHEREIN FIRST GROUND RAISED IS THAT THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 20,950/-, MADE U/S 68 OF THE ACT. 2. DURING HEARING, WE HAVE HEARD SHRI KESHAV SAXENA, LEARNED CIT DR AND SHRI S.S. DESHPANDE, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE CRUX OF ARGUMENTS ON BE HALF OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE STATEMENT OF ONE OF THE EMPLOYEES, NAMELY, SHRI SHAILENDRA DUBEY WAS RECORDED WHO COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE THE AMOUNT OF DEPOSIT AND WITHDRAWALS APPEARING IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AND FURTHER T HE 3 BANK ACCOUNT WAS USED ONLY FOR SALARY DEPOSITED BY HIS EMPLOYER I.E. THE ASSESSEE. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE L D. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DEFENDED THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE THEREIN. 2.1 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. THE FACTS, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.20,950/- FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR AS THE AMOUNT WAS FOUND DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF SHAILENDRA DUBEY, AN EMPLOYEE OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM. TH E ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS IN THE SAID BANK ACCOUNTS AS HAS BEEN MENTIONED IN PARA 6.2 (PAGE 4) OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER ALONG WITH THE DEPOSITS IN DIF FERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS. IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE AMOUNTS WERE TRANSFERRED PERIODICALLY IN THE ACCOUNTS OF SHRI DUBEY EITHER IN CASH OR FOR SELF. HIS STATEMENT WAS RECORDE D AND ACCORDINGLY IT WAS INFERRED THAT HIS SALARY WAS NOT 4 SUFFICIENT TO SUBSTANTIATE THE AMOUNTS FOUND DEPOSITED IN HIS ACCOUNT, CONSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE UNACCOUNTED AMOUNTS WERE BEING ROUTED THROUGH HIS ACCOUNT, CONSEQUENTLY, THESE WERE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINE D CREDITS U/S 68 OF THE ACT. DURING HEARING BEFORE T HE LEARNED CIT(A) IT WAS CLAIMED THAT MR. DUBEY WAS WORKING AS SALESMAN FOR THE LAST 20 YEARS WITH THE ASSESSEE AND H E WAS PAID BONUS ALSO APART FROM HIS SALARY. MR. DUBEY WAS ALSO A REGULAR INCOME TAX ASSESSEE HAVING PAN AGXPD 0657P. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS SUMMARISED THE DETAILS O F SUCH PAYMENTS/DEPOSITS AT PAGES 7 ONWARDS. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT SHRI SHAILENDRA DUBEY IS, IN FACT, THE ACCO UNT HOLDER IN THE BANK. IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED FROM TH E PARTNERS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM, NO QUESTION RELATING TO SHRI SHAILENDRA DUBEY OR IN RESPECT OF HIS BANK ACCOUNT WAS ASKED AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT EITHER THE CHEQUE B OOK OR BANK ACCOUNT OF SHRI SHAILENDRA DUBEY WAS SEIZED FRO M 5 THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE, RATHER WHILE RECORDING THE STATEMENT OF SHRI SHAILENDRA DUBEY, THE PASSBOOK WAS TAKEN FROM HIM. IT SEEMS THAT THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MAD E MERELY ON THE BASIS OF PRESUMPTION. THE LEARNED CIT( A) HAS DULY CONSIDERED THE CONTENTS OF THE AFFIDAVITS OF SHR I DUBEY ALONG WITH CASE LAWS AND OTHER RELEVANT RECORD. THE ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT HAS BEEN MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE AMOUNTS WHICH WERE FOUND CREDITE D IN THE ACCOUNT OF ANOTHER PERSON THAT TOO WITHOUT BRINGIN G ANY POSITIVE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE TRANSACTIONS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF SHRI SHAILENDRA DUBEY EVEN TECHNICALLY CANNOT BE MADE TO BE PART OF TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONSEQUENT ADDITION U/S 68. EVEN THE ACCOUNT WAS OPENED AND OPERATED BY SHRI SHAILENDRA DUBEY AND NOT BY THE PARTNERS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM, CONSEQUENTLY, WE FI ND NO INFIRMITY IN THE CONCLUSION DRAWN IN THE IMPUGNED O RDER. 6 3. THE NEXT GROUND PERTAINS TO DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.61,94,600/- ON THE BASIS OF ALLEGED EXCESS STOC K. THE CRUX OF ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE IS THAT NO SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION OR EVIDENCE WAS FURNISHED BY TH E ASSESSEE FOR EXCESS STOCK WEIGHING 2895.150 GMS OF JEWELLERY AND ITS GENUINENESS. THE CRUX OF ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED AT THE PREMISES ON 13.11.2007 WHEREAS THE BILLS ARE OF L ATER DATE BY FURTHER POINTING OUT THAT THE BILL DATED 28.10 .2007 IS OF GHADAI (MANUFACTURING) AND NOT OF JEWELLERY. OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO PAGES 40 TO 45 OF THE PAPER BO OK. IN NUTSHELL, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE BILL OF LATER D ATE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PERIOD OF SEARCH I.E. BE FORE 13.11.2007 AND THE SAME HAS BEEN IGNORED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) MEANING THEREBY THAT NO CREDIT CAN BE GIVEN TO THE AMOUNTS OF THE BILLS OF THE LATER DATE AS THE STOCK HAS TO BE SEEN ON THE DATE OF SURVEY. OUR ATTENTION WAS ALSO IN VITED 7 TO PAGES 47 AND 48 OF THE PAPER BOOK. A PLEA WAS ALSO RAISED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS NOT VERIFIED THE BILLS WHIC H ARE OF THE SAME SERIAL NUMBER. 3.1 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY DEFENDED THE IMPUGNED ORDER BY ASSERTING THAT IT IS A SALE BETWEEN THE TWO CONCERNS AND THERE IS AN ENTRY IN THE STOCK REGISTER FOR WHICH OU R ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO PAGES 44 AND 45 OF THE PAPER BO OK. THE GOLD WAS CLAIMED TO BE CONVERTED INTO NEW ORNAMENT S, THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE ARGUED TO BE AUDITED ONE. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. BALCHAND AJIT KUMAR; 263 ITR 610 (MP) AND MAN MOHAN SADANI VS. CIT; 304 ITR 52 (MP). IN REPLY, THE LEARNE D CIT DR CONTENDED THAT WHEN SALE IS IN DISPUTE, THE USUAL PRACTICE IN THE MARKET HAS TO BE CONSIDERED. 3.2 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. BEFORE 8 COMING TO ANY CONCLUSION, WE ARE REPRODUCING HEREUNDE R THE CONCLUSION DRAWN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER :- 7.4 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT AS ALSO THE OBSERVATION OF ASSESSING OFFICER REGARD ING THIS ADDITION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT STOCK AS PE R STOCK REGISTER SEIZED DURING THE SEARCH WAS 49475.940 GRAMS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE BECAUSE PURCHASE BILLS WERE FOUND TO THE EXTENT OF 46563.910 GRAMS ONLY. THE EXCESS STOCK WEIGHING 2943.590 GRAM VALUED FOR RS. 62,61,728/- WAS TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME A ND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME. THE APPELLANT CASE IS THAT GOLD A RTICLES WEIGHING 2210.300 GRAMS WERE RECEIVED FROM DEALER M/S AGRAWA L JEWELLERS CHOWK, BHOPAL AND GOLD ARTICLES WEIGHING 684.850 GM S WERE RECEIVED FROM M/S KANWAL JEWELLERS. AS PER THE APPE LLANT, RECEIPTS OF SUCH ITEMS ARE ALSO EVIDENCED AS PER SEIZED VYAP ARI REGISTER. IT MAY BE NOTED THAT THE MAIN DISPUTE IS REGARDING TWO ITEMS OF STOCKS I.E. STOCK RECEIVED FROM M/S AGRAWAL JEWELLERS, CHO WK BAZAR, BHOPAL WEIGHING 2210.300 GRAMS AND STOCK RECEIVED F ROM M/S KAWAL JEWELLERS WEIGHING 684.850 GRAMS. IT IS ALSO NOTICED THAT DURING THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS, STOCK REGISTER/VYAPA RI REGISTER IN RESPECT OF ITEMS SENT TO OTHER PARTIES AND RECEIVED FROM OTHER PARTIES WAS FOUND AND SEIZED AS PER BS-0. THIS REG ISTER CONTAINS DATEWISE DETAIL OF RECEIPT OF ITEM AS WELL AS ISSUE /SENDING OF ITEMS INCLUDING VOUCHER NOS. AND BILL NOS. AS PER THE RE GISTER, STOCK WEIGHING 1490.500 GRAMS WAS ISSUED/SEND TO M/S KANW AL JEWELLERS OF AMRATSAR ON 25.10.2007 VIDE VOUCHER NO. 47 AND S TOCK WEIGHING 2175.350 GRAMS WAS RECEIVED ON 28.10.2007 AGAINST T HE STOCK SENT EARLIER. IT IS ALSO NOTICED THAT THE TRANSACTIONS WITH M/S KANWAL JEWELLERS WAS NOT THE ISOLATED TRANSACTIONS AND EAR LIER ON 07.07.2007 AND 10.07.2007 SIMILAR TRANSACTIONS HAVE BEEN MADE. THEREFORE, ON THE BASIS OF REGISTER FOUND AND SEIZE D DURING THE SEARCH OPERATION, STOCK WEIGHING 684.850 GRAMS IS P ROVED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM M/S KAWAL JEWELLERS AND THIS PAR TY SUBSEQUENTLY RAISED BILL OF 684.850 GRAMS IN THE NAME OF APPELLA NT. THE APPELLANT ALSO MADE PAYMENTS AGAINST SUCH PURCHASES TO THIS PARTY. ALL THESE FACTS WERE STATED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE ASSESSING 9 OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS . IN THIS BACKGROUND, THERE CANNOT BE ANY DISPUTE REGARDING S TOCK OF GOLD ORNAMENTS WEIGHING 684.850 GRAMS TO HAVE BEEN RECEI VED FROM ABOVE-MENTIONED PARTY BY THE APPELLANT. AS REGARDS ANOTHER ITEMS OF STOCK WEIGHING 2210.300 GRAMS STATED TO BE RECEI VED FROM M/S AGRAWASL JEWELLERS, CHOWK BAZAR, BHOPAL, IT MAY BE NOTICED THAT SUCH STOCK IS ALSO FOUND TO BE RECEIVED FROM THE SA ME STOCK REGISTER/VYAPARI REGISTER I.E. BS-9 SEIZED DURING C OURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION. SUCH GOLD ORNAMENTS WERE RECEIVED ON VYA PARI REGISTER I.E. BS-9 SEIZED DURING COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION. SUCH GOLD ORNAMENTS WERE RECEIVED ON VYAPARI REGISTER 24.10.2 007 VIDE VOUCHER NO. 77. IT MAY BE STATED THAT M/S AGRAWAL JEWELLERS, CHOWK BAZAR, BHOPAL, IS THE SISTER CONCERN OF THE A PPELLANT AND AS REGARDS SUCH STOCK OF 2210.300 GRAMS, STATEMENT OF PARTNER OF M/S AGRAWAL JEWELLERS NAMELY SHRI JAIMOHAN AGRAWAL WAS RECORDED DURING THE SEARCH OPERATIONS AND HE WAS SPECIFICALL Y ASKED REGARDING SUCH STOCK. THE PARTNER ADMITTED TO HAVE SENT SUCH STOCK TO THE APPELLANT FIRM. STOCK REGISTER/VYAPARI REGI STER OF THIS FIRM WAS ALSO SEIZED AND SENDING ON SUCH STOCK IS EVIDEN CED FROM THE SEIZED RECORDS. IT IS ALSO NOTICED THAT WHILE COMP LETING THE ASSESSMENT OF M/S AGRAWAL JEWELLERS, CHOWK BAZAR BH OPAL, THE SAME ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THEIR VERSION THAT STOCK TO THE EXTENT OF 2210.300 GRAMS WAS SENT TO THE APPELLANT FIRM. IN THIS BACKGROUND, AS REGARDS THESE TWO STOCKS WEIGHING 28 95.150 GRAMS (684.850+2210.300 GRAMS) IT IS HELD THAT SUCH STOCK WAS GENUINELY AVAILABLE WITH THE APPELLANT. IF THIS STOCK IS TAK EN INTO CONSIDERATION, THE DIFFERENCE IN STOCK IS ARRIVED A T 31.56 GRAMS I.E. THIS MUCH OF STOCK CAN TREATED TO BE FOUND EXCESS A S COMPARED TO STOCK SHOWN IN THE STOCK REGISTER. THE VALUE OF SU CH EXCESS STOCK @ RS. 2139.50 PER GRAM (AVERAGE SELLING RATE OF THE YEAR) IS ARRIVED AT RS. 67,523/- AND THE SAME IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAI NED INVESTMENT IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT. THEREFORE, ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 67,523/- IS CONFIRMED AND THE APPELLANT GETS RE LIEF OF RS. 61,94,605/-. 3.3 IF THE CONCLUSION DRAWN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, OBSERVATION MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE 10 ASSERTION MADE BY THE LEARNED RESPECTIVE COUNSEL, ARE K EPT IN JUXTAPOSITION AND ANALYSED, WE FIND THAT AS PER THE ASSESSEE, THE GOLD ARTICLES RECEIVED FROM AGRAWAL JEWE LLERS, AS PER SEIZED STOCK REGISTER, ARE 2210.300 GRAMS AND GO LD ARTICLES RECEIVED FROM KANWAL JEWELLERS, AS PER SEIZED STOCK REGISTER, IS 684.850 GMS WHICH WERE NOT ACCEPTED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE SAME IS THE POINT OF DISPUTE BEFORE US. THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THESE QUANTITIES HAVE BEEN DULY REFLECTED IN THE STOCK REGISTERS. DURING SEARCH PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS SEEN TH AT AS PER STOCK REGISTER AS ON 25.10.2007, THE GOLD TO THE EXTENT OF 1490.500 GMS WAS ISSUED TO M/S KANVAL JEWELLERS, AMRITSAR, AGAINST WHICH 2175.350 GMS OF GOLD ORNAMENTS WERE RECEIVED ON 28.10.2007. THUS, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE ALLEGED EXCESS GOLD ORNAMENTS OF 684.850 GMS. AS PER THE REVENUE, ON PHYSICAL VERIFI CATION OF STOCK OF GOLD ORNAMENTS AT ROSHANPURA SHOWROOM, TH E 11 ORNAMENTS VALUING RS. 6,68,93,434/- (49512.420 GMS) WERE FOUND AGAINST WHICH RECORD OF THE ASSESSEE WAS AT 46568.830 GMS VALUING RS.4,06,34,649/-. ACCORDINGLY , THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER VALUED THE EXCESS STOCK OF RS.62,61,728/- (2943.590 GMS) AND THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED AS TO WHY THE SAME SHOULD NOT BE ADDED AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE I S/WAS THAT STOCK REGISTER IS MAINTAINED AND THERE IS MERELY A MARGINAL DIFFERENCE OF ABOUT 37 GMS WHICH IS DUE TO WEIGHING ERRORS. THE GOLD VALUED AT RS.62,61,728/- (AL LEGED EXCESS STOCK OF 2943.590 GMS) WAS HELD TO BE UNDISCL OSED INVESTMENT AND ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. DURING HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE INVI TED OUR ATTENTION TO VOUCHER NO. 77 DATED 24.10.2007, ISSUED BY AGRAWAL JEWELLERS, BHOPAL, EVIDENCING CONFIRMATION OF GIVING GOLD ORNAMENTS TO THE ASSESSEE AND RECEIPT OF GOLD ARTICLES ENTRY IN ITS VYAPARI REGISTER ON 24.10.2007 ( BS-9- 12 SEIZED VYAPARI REGISTER). EVEN OTHERWISE, IT WAS CLAIME D BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF M/S KANVAL JEWELLERS (IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE) FOR ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2008-09, BILLS OF M/S KANVAL JEWELLERS DATED 1.12.2007, 10.7.2007 AND 28.10.2007, COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF VYAPARI REGISTER AND COPY OF GOLD RECEIPT VOU CHER NO. 11 DATED 28.10.2007 WERE DULY FURNISHED BEFORE T HE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS WORTH MENTIONING THAT THE VYAPARI REGISTER OF M/S AGRAWAL JEWELLERS, BHOPAL, WAS ALSO SEI ZED BY THE SEARCH PARTY (BS-3) WHEREIN THE SAID CONCERN HAS ALSO RECORDED IN THE VYAPARI REGISTER THE GOLD ARTICLES WORTH 2210.300 GMS (VIDE VOUCHER NO. 77 DATED 24.10.2007) . IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE PAYMENTS AGAINST SUCH PURCHASES WHICH HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE REVENUE. THE ONLY POINT OF DISPUTE NOW REMAINS WITH REGARD TO LENGTH OF TIME FOR PAYMENT. UNDER THESE FAC TS, IT CAN BE SAID THAT IT DEPENDS ON THE BUSINESS RELATIONS 13 BETWEEN THE PARTIES AND THE REVENUE IS NOT EXPECTED E ITHER TO PRESUME ANYTHING OR TO SIT IN THE ARM-CHAIR OF THE BUSINESSMAN UNLESS AND UNTIL ANY CONTRARY EVIDENCE IS BROUGHT ON RECORD. THE STATEMENTS OF THE PARTNERS WER E DULY RECORDED WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED THAT SUCH STOCK OF GOLD WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE FIRM. THERE I S UNCONTROVERTED FINDING IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT OF M/S AGRAWAL JEWELLERS, THE SAME ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED THIS VERSION THAT STOCK TO THE EX TENT OF 2210.300 GMS WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE FIRM. IN THIS BACKDROP, NO U TURN IS EXPECTED OR PERMITTED. EVE N OTHERWISE, THE EXCESS STOCK OF 31.56 GMS WHICH WAS CLAIMED TO BE A WEIGHING ERROR BY THE ASSESSEE, THE V ALUE OF WHICH IS RS.2139.50 PER GRAM, WAS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT RESULTING INTO ADDITION OF RS . 66,523/-, THEREFORE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ST AND OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). IT IS AFFIRMED. 14 4. THE NEXT GROUND PERTAINS TO DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,85,416/-. THE CRUX OF ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT FIRSTLY THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSE E IS NOT SATISFACTORY AND SECONDLY THE STATEMENT OF SHRI SHAS HI MOHAN CONTRADICTS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. ON THE O THER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DEFENDED THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 4.1 ON PERUSAL OF RECORD AND AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE FIND THAT AN ADDITION OF RS.4,59,181/ - WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF SALES OUT OF BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF CERTAIN HAND-WRI TTEN SLIPS IN WHICH CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS WERE RECORDED AS HA S BEEN MENTIONED IN PARA 8.2 ONWARDS OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE STATEMENT OF SHRI SHASHI MOHAN, PARTNER OF T HE FIRM, WAS RECORDED ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE AMOUNTS W ERE TREATED AS SALES OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME. HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT THE LEARNE D 15 CIT(A) HAS DULY EXAMINED EACH AND EVERY ENTRY BY TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE OBSERVATION OF THE LEARNED ASS ESSING OFFICER AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. TH E TRUE COPY OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS ON THE BASIS OF WH ICH THE ADDITION WAS MADE WAS DULY PERUSED/EXAMINED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND ULTIMATELY HE FOUND THAT THE UNACCOUNTED SALES WERE ONLY TO THE TUNE OF RS. 1,73,7 65/- WHICH RESULTED INTO RELIEF OF RS.2,85,416/- OUT OF THE TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.4,59,181/-. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDER AND THE RELEVANT RECORD AND ARE SATISFIED THAT THE LEARNED FI RST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS OBJECTIVELY ANALYSED THE OBSERVATI ON OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE , IN WHICH WE FIND NO INFIRMITY. IT IS, THEREFORE, AFFIRM ED. 5. THE LAST GROUND IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE PERTAINS TO DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.8,30,446/- ON ACCOUNT OF PRECIOUS STONES. THE LEARNED CIT DR DEFEND ED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BY SUBMITTING THAT THE OBSERVATIO N OF 16 THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT NO DOCUMENTARY PROOF OR SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION WAS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE H AS BEEN IGNORED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHILE REACHING TO THE CONCLUSION WHEREAS THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DEFENDED THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 5.1 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE OBSERVATION THAT THE STOCK OF PRECIOUS STONE WAS N OT SUPPORTED BY VALID BILLS/VOUCHERS AGAINST WHICH FROM T HE ASSESSMENT STAGE ITSELF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS T HAT THESE ITEMS WERE PURCHASED ON VARIOUS DATES FROM DEALER S AS WELL AS FROM CUSTOMERS AND THE SAME FORMS PART OF THE OPENING STOCK. IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, AS IS OOZING O UT FROM PARA 9.3 ONWARDS, THE VARIOUS BILLS, RESPECTIVE AMOUNTS WITH REFERENCE TO SEIZED MATERIAL HAVE BEEN DULY CONSIDERED. IN THE JAWAHARAT ACCOUNT, THE APPELLANT IN TH E 17 IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR AND ALSO IN THE EARLIER YEARS HAS SHOWN THE RESPECTIVE AMOUNTS AS DETAILED AT PAGE 30 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THERE IS UNCONTOVERTED FINDING IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT THE JAWAHARAT ACCOUNT WAS DULY MAINTAINED ON YEAR TO YEAR BASIS AND THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL STOCK IN COMPARISON TO THE ADDITION, CONSEQUENTLY, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND CONFIRM THE S AME. 6. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PREFERRED CROSS OBJECTION AGAINST SUSTENANCE OF THE ADDITION OF RS. 67,523/- OUT OF THE ALLEGED EXCESS STOCK OF GOLD OF RS.62,61,628/- B Y THE LEARNED CIT(A). WITHOUT GOING INTO MUCH DELIBERATION AND SPECIFICALLY WHILE DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL OF THE REVE NUE (SUPRA), SINCE THE STAND OF THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS BEEN AFFIRMED ON THIS ISSUE, THEREFORE, IT HAS REMAINED FOR ACADEMIC INTEREST ONLY, CONSEQUENTLY, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE. I T IS DISMISSED. 18 7. THE NEXT GROUND OF CROSS OBJECTION PERTAINS TO SUSTENANCE OF THE ADDITION OF RS.1,73,765/- OUT OF TH E TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.4,59,181/-. WE FIND THAT ON THIS COUN T ALSO, WE HAVE AFFIRMED THE STAND OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHILE DISPOSING OF THE REVNEUES APPEAL, THEREFORE, THERE I S NO MERIT IN THIS GROUND ALSO. FINALLY, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AS WELL AS THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19.6.2012. SD SD (R.C. SHARMA) (JOGINDER SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 19.6.2012 COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT/CIT(A)/DR/GUARD FILE DN/-