Yogesh Vithalbhai Zaveri, Aurangabad V. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax,

ITA 1537/PUN/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7649 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-04-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 14-03-2018
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 14-07-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MUKESH JHA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment
• Section: 143(3); 133A; 131; 69

Judgement Text

- IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH SMC , PUNE , BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM . / ITA NO. 1537 /P U N/201 6 / ASSES SMENT YEAR : 20 02 - 03 SHRI YOGESH VITHALBHAI ZAVERI, KASARI BAJAR, AURANGABAD - 431002 . / APPELLANT PAN: A AEPZ9301M VS. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , RANGE 2, AURANGABAD . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : SHRI NIKHIL PATHAK / RESPONDENT BY : S HRI MUKESH JHA / DATE OF HEARING : 1 8 . 0 4 .201 8 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 25 . 0 4 .201 8 / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J M : TH E APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT (A) - 2 , AURANGABAD , DATED 11 . 0 5 .20 1 6 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 02 - 03 AGAINST ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT , 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) . ITA NO. 1537 /P U N/20 1 6 SHRI YOGESH V ZAVERI 2 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND OF APPEAL: - ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) (LD CIT(A)) - 2 HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.23,22,760/ - ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN ANAMAT GOLD TREATING IT AS UNEXPLAINED IN VESTMENT U/S 69A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCES PRODUCED BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER AND BEFORE LD. CIT(A) - 2. 3. THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS AGAINST ADDITION OF 23,22,760/ - . 4. BRIEFLY, IN THE FACTS OF THE CAS E, THE ASSESSEE WAS THE PROPRIETOR OF M/S. V.B. JEWELLERS AND M/S. V.B. ZAVERI AND SONS, AURANGABAD. BOTH THE CONCERNS WERE ENGAGED IN SALE OF JEWELLERY. THE ASSESSEE ALSO DISCLOSED INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND CAPITAL GAINS. SURVEY ACTION UNDER SECTIO N 133A OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF ASSESSEE ON 11.03.2002. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, STATEMENT OF ASSESSEE WAS RECORDED ON OATH. CERTAIN DISCREPANCIES WERE FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, WHICH WERE CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESS EE. ONE SUCH DISCREPANCY WAS IN CASH AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND AS PER TRAI L BALANCE ; INVENTORY OF STOCK FOUND WAS ALSO PREPARED AND THE DIFFERENCE IN STOCK WORKED OUT TO 7,98,102/ - . THE ASSESSEE WAS CONFRONTED WITH THE SAID DIFFERENCE AND THE ASSESSE E POINTED OUT THAT HE WILL RECONCILE THE DIFFERENCES. ANOTHER STATEMENT OF ASSESSEE WAS RECORDED UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE ACT ON 22.03.2002. IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, THE ASSESSEE HAD STATED THAT GOLD ORNAMENTS WEIGHING 5 TO 6 KG BELONGING TO M/S. VITTHALDAS ZAVERI & SONS , IRLA VILLE PARLE, WEST MUMBAI, WERE LYING WITH HIM. DURING THE COURSE OF SECOND STATEMENT RECORDED UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE WAS MAINLY QUESTIONED REGARDING THE SAID JEWELLERY. THE ASSES SEE CLAIMED THAT THE SAID JEWELLERY AVAILABLE WITH HIM WAS ANAMAT. ANOTHER STATEMENT WAS RECORDED UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE ACT ON 21.03.2005. ITA NO. 1537 /P U N/20 1 6 SHRI YOGESH V ZAVERI 3 THE ASSESSEE WAS SHOW CAUSED AS TO WHY THE SAID GOLD FOUND FROM HIM SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS HIS STOCK AND THE I NVESTMENT MADE IN THE SAME SHOULD NOT BE ADDED UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE VIDE SUBMISSIONS DATED 16.03.2005 STATED THAT THE STOCK OF GOLD ORNAMENTS TO THE EXTENT OF 5805.910 GRAMS BELONGED TO M/S. VITHALDAS B. ZAVERI AND SONS PVT. LTD., WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY IN THE POSSESSION OF ASSESSEE. HE POINTED OUT THAT VOUCHERS WERE SHOWN BY HIM TO THE SURVEY PARTY AND IT WAS THE GENERAL PRACTICE IN THE LINE OF JEWELLERY BUSINESS TO TRANSFER THE STOCK ON THE BASIS OF SUCH TRANSFER VOUC HERS ONLY. SINCE THE STOCK BELONGED TO M/S. VITHALDAS B. ZAVERI AND SONS PVT. LTD., THE SAME WAS NOT RECORDED IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE SHORTAGE OF STOCK AS PER THE REGISTER AND AS PER TRADING ACCOUNT , DIFFERENCE WAS ON ACCOU NT OF GOLD BEING HANDED OVER TO GOLDSMITH FOR PREPARING ORNAMENTS. IT WAS FURTHER EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT STOCK RECEIVED FROM M/S. VITHALDAS B. ZAVERI AND SONS PVT. LTD. DURING FINANCIAL YEAR 2000 - 01 WAS 14872.66 GRAMS, WHEREAS STOCK OF 9066.75 GRA MS WAS RETURNED TO THE SAID PARTY AND THE CLOSING STOCK HELD BY HIM ON THEIR BEHALF AS ON 31.03.2001 WAS 5805.910 GRAMS ; THE SAID STOCK WAS WITH THE ASSESSEE ON THE DATE OF SURVEY. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT HE HAD SHOWN THE SAME IN TRANSFER CO LUMN OF STOCK REGISTER. FURTHER, STOCK OF 1911.650 GRAMS WAS SENT TO M/S. CHAINCRAFT, MUMBAI ON 20.01.2001 FOR PREPARATION OF ORNAMENTS AND THIS STOCK WAS ALSO SHOWN ON TRANSFER COLUMN. THE STOCK WAS SHOWN AS TRANSFER RED BACK AS ON 31.03.2001 AND RECEIVE D BACK ON 01.04.2001. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION OF ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND TO BE IN POSSESSION OF GOLD ORNAMENTS WEIGHING 5806.910 GRAMS VALUED AT 23,22,764/ - , THE SAME WAS HELD TO BE UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT OF ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 69A OF THE ACT. ITA NO. 1537 /P U N/20 1 6 SHRI YOGESH V ZAVERI 4 5. THE CIT(A) DID NOT ACCEPT THE THEORY OF ANAMAT GOLD PROPOUNDED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) VIDE ORDER DATED 28.12.2005 ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSE E. THE REVENUE FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER IN ITA NO.363/PN/2006 REMITTED THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) TO ASSESS CORRECT AND COMPLETE FACTS OF THE CASE. 6. THE CIT(A) IN THE SECOND ROUND NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED COPIES OF VOUCHERS ISSUED BY M/S. VITHALDAS ZAVERI AND SONS PVT. LTD. SHOWING THE DATES OF TRANSFER AND THE WEIGHT OF GOLD THAT WAS TRANSFERRED. THESE DOCUMENTS WERE FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHO ALSO ACKNOWLEDGED THE SAME BUT D ID NOT GIVE ANY OBSERVATION ON THE SAID TRANSFER VOUCHERS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. HOWEVER, IN THE REMAND REPORT IN THE FIRST PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD STATED THAT THE DETAILS OF ORNAMENTS WERE NOT GIVEN ON THE TRANSFER VOUCHERS. THE CIT(A ) NOTED THAT IN THE INITIAL APPELLATE ORDER DATED 28.12.2005, THE CIT(A) HAD STATED THAT THE STOCK OF ANAMAT GOLD WAS REFLECTED IN STOCK REGISTER MAINTAINED IN COMPUTER AND COPY OF STOCK REGISTER WAS FILED. HOWEVER, BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IT WAS EX PLAINED THAT THE SAID STOCK OF ANAMAT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN CLOSING STOCK AS IT DID NOT BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO PURCHASE VALUE WAS NOT RECORDED IN PURCHASES REGISTER OF ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAD MAINTAINED RECORD OF ANAMAT GOLD IN THE QUAN TITATIVE STOCK REGISTER MAINTAINED BY HIM IN COMPUTER. THE RECORDING OF STOCK WAS WEIGHT RECEIVED AND WEIGHT ISSUED. THE COMMISSIONER ON PERUSAL OF STOCK QUANTITATIVE REGISTER OF ANAMAT GOLD NOTED THAT THERE WERE VARIOUS ENTRIES AND THE ASSESSEE HAD RECE IVED THE GOLD DURING FINANCIAL YEAR 2000 - 01 AND HAD ISSUED THE SAME QUANTITY OF GOLD AND HENCE, NOTHING WAS LYING WITH THE ASSESSEE AS ANAMAT GOLD. IT WAS NOTED THAT ON 31.03.2001, THE ASSESSEE HAD ISSUED QUANTITY OF 5805.910 GRAMS OF GOLD TO M/S. VITHALD AS ZAVERI AND SONS ITA NO. 1537 /P U N/20 1 6 SHRI YOGESH V ZAVERI 5 PVT. LTD. AND IMMEDIATELY RECEIVED THE SAME QUANTITY ON THE VERY NEXT DAY. HOWEVER, THIS MOVEMENT OF GOLD WAS NOT REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) THUS, HELD THAT THE QUANTIT ATIVE STOCK REGISTER WAS NOT RELIABL E AS IT DID NOT PRESENT THE PICTURE OF ANAMAT GOLD. THE CIT(A) THUS, HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF GOLD WEIGHING 5805.910 GRAMS AND THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS CONFIRMED. 7. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST TH E ORDER OF CIT(A). 8. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THIS WAS THE SECOND ROUND OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. HE TOOK US THROUGH THE FACTS OF CASE I.E. SURVEY ON 11.03.2002, STATEMENT RECORDED AND THE REPLY O F ASSESSEE IN INITIAL STAGES THAT PART OF STOCK BELONGED TO M/S. VITHALDAS ZAVERI AND SONS PVT. LTD. ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO FIRST STATEMENT PLACED AT PAGE 4 OF THE PAPER BOOK WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO QUESTION NO.20. HE THEN REFERRED TO SECOND STATEMENT RECORDED UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE ACT, WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGES 9 AND 10 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT MANY QUERIES WERE RAISED WITH REGARD TO THE SAID GOLD LYING WITH THE ASSESSEE. HE THEN REFERRED TO THE ORDER OF ITAT AT PAGES 32 TO 37 O F PAPER BOOK. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT CONFIRMATION FROM M/S. VITHALDAS ZAVERI AND SONS PVT. LTD. WAS FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CIT(A) IN THE FIRST ROUND OF PROCEEDINGS ITSELF. HOWEVER, THE SAME WAS MISSING BEFORE THE ITAT AND MATTER WAS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT(A). HE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE SAID STOCK WAS NOT SHOWN IN THE CLOSING STOCK OF ASSESSEE BUT WAS DULY REFLECTED IN THE STOCK REGISTER. HE FURTHER REFERRED TO ENTRY ON 31.03 .2001 WHEN IT WAS SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN ITA NO. 1537 /P U N/20 1 6 SHRI YOGESH V ZAVERI 6 RETURNED TO M/S. VITHALDAS ZAVERI AND SONS PVT. LTD. AND ON 01.04.2001, THE S AME WAS SHOWN AS RECEIVED BACK, WHICH WAS THE PRACTICE FOLLOWED. 9. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE HOWEVER, STRESSED THAT IT WA S DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE GOLD BELONGING TO A CONCERN AT MUMBAI WAS LYING WITH THE ASSESSEE, WHO WAS OPERATING AT AURANGABAD. HE FURTHER STRESSED THAT THE GOLD WAS RECEIVED IN 2001 AND TILL DATE OF SURVEY IT WAS LYING WITH THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY TRANSFER MEMO, THE PLEA OF ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE ACCEPTED. 10. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE IN REJOINDER POINTED OUT THAT EXPLANATION WHICH HA D BEEN GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE DURING SURVEY PROCEEDINGS HA D BE EN AGAIN RELIED UPON DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND EVEN BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY. IT WA S NOT AN AFTERTHOUGHT AND WHERE THE ASSESSEE HA D MAINTAINED THE ENTRIES IN THE STOCK REGISTER IN THIS REGARD, THE SAME MERITS TO BE ACCEPTED. 1 1. ON PERUSAL OF RECORD AND AFTER HEARING BOTH THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES, THE ISSUE WHICH ARISES IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS IN RESPECT OF ANAMAT GOLD FOUND FROM THE ASSESSEE; WHERE THE CASE OF REVENUE IS THAT GOLD FOUND FROM THE ASSESSEE BELONGS TO THE ASSESSEE AND IN THE ABSENCE OF SAME BEING SHOWN AS STOCK IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE, UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE SAID STOCK OF GOLD IS TO BE ADDED UNDER SECTION 69A OF THE ACT. SURVEY UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED ON 11.03.2002 AT TH E BUSINESS PREMISES OF ASSESSEE. IN RESPECT OF GOLD WEIGHING 5805.910 GRAMS, THE ASSESSEE IN THE INITIAL STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY STATED THAT THE SAID GOLD DOES NOT BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE BUT BELONGS TO ITS SISTER CONCERN M/S. ITA NO. 1537 /P U N/20 1 6 SHRI YOGESH V ZAVERI 7 VITHAL DAS ZAVERI AND SONS PVT. LTD. IN REPLY TO QUESTION NO.20, WHEREIN HE WAS ASKED WHETHER ANY GOLD OR ORNAMENTS BELONGING TO ANY OTHER PERSON WERE AVAILABLE AT HIS PREMISES, THEN THE REPLY OF ASSESSEE WAS THAT AT HIS SHOP GOLD ORNAMENTS WEIGHING 5 TO 6 KG BE LONGED TO M/S. VITHALDAS ZAVERI AND SONS PVT. LTD. WERE LYING. HE ALSO GAVE ADDRESS OF THE SAID PARTY AT MUMBAI. THEREAFTER, ANOTHER STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE ACT WAS RECORDED OF ASSESSEE ON 22.03.2002, IN WHICH QUERIES WERE RAISED IN RESPECT OF GOLD ORNAMENTS FOUND FROM HIS PREMISES, WHICH HE ALLEGES TO BELONG TO M/S. VITHALDAS ZAVERI AND SONS PVT. LTD. HE WAS ASKED WHY THE SAID GOLD ORNAMENTS WERE KEPT WITH HIM AND WHY THE SAME HAVE NOT BEEN RETURNED TILL DATE. HE WAS ALSO QUESTIONED AS TO WH ETHER THE SAME HAVE BEEN SHOWN IN HIS CLOSING STOCK. THE ASSESSEE IN REPLY, STATED THAT SINCE RENOVATION OF THE SHOP OF M/S. VITHALDAS ZAVERI AND SONS PVT. LTD. WAS BEING CARRIED ON, HENCE THESE GOLD ORNAMENTS WERE KEPT AS ANAMAT WITH HIM. FURTHER, SINCE THE COMPANY HAD NOT ASKED FOR THE SAID GOLD ORNAMENTS, THEY WERE NOT RETURNED TO IT. HE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT IN THE CLOSING STOCK, THE SAID GOLD ORNAMENTS WERE NOT INCLUDED. THE ASSESSEE ALSO EXPLAINED THAT ITEM - WISE DETAILS OF SAID GOLD ORNAMENTS WERE NOT PREPARED. THE STATEMENT OF SHRI YOGESH ZAVERI WAS RECORDED ON 21.03.2005, IN WHICH HE WAS CONFRONTED WITH THREE VOUCHERS OF M/S. VITHALDAS ZAVERI AND SONS PVT. LTD. AND HE WAS ASKED WHETHER THE SAID ORNAMENTS WERE SHOWN IN HIS STOCK. THE ASSESSEE RE ITERATED THAT THE SAID GOLD WAS LYING AS ANAMAT WITH HIM AND THE SAME W ERE NOT SHOWN IN THE CLOSING STOCK. VARIOUS OTHER QUESTIONS WERE ALSO ASKED IN THIS REGARD. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED CERTIFICATE DATED 15.04.2003 OF M/S. VITHALDAS ZAVERI AND SONS PVT. LTD. TO THE EFFECT THAT STOCK OF GOLD 5805.910 GRAMS WERE LYING WITH M/S. V.B. JEWELLERS. COPIES OF VOUCHERS, UNDER WHICH THE GOLD W ERE TRANSFERRED TO ASSESSEE, ARE PLACED AT PAGES 20 AND 21 OF PAPER BOOK. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE SAID GOLD ORNAMENTS IN THE ITA NO. 1537 /P U N/20 1 6 SHRI YOGESH V ZAVERI 8 STOCK REGISTER AND AS ON 31.03.2001, THE ENTRY WAS PASSED IN THE STOCK REGISTER AS TRANSFER RED TO M/S. VITHALDAS ZAVERI AND SONS PVT. LTD. AND ON 01.04.2001, THE SAME WAS AGAIN SHOWN AS RECEIVED FROM M/S.VITHALDAS ZAVERI AND SONS PVT. LTD. THE ASSE SSEE EXPLAINED THAT SINCE THE GOLD DID NOT BELONG TO IT, THEN ON THE CLOSING DATE, THE SAME WAS SHOWN AS RETURNED AND ON NEXT DATE, IT WA S SHOWN AS RECEIVED BACK. HOWEVER, THE ENTRIES WERE ONLY ACCOUNTING ENTRIES AND THE GOLD WAS LYING WITH ASSESSEE AS AN AMAT. 12. THE PERUSAL OF DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND APPELLATE ORDER REFLECTS THAT THE ASSESSEE FROM THE FIRST STAGE OF RECORDING OF STATEMENT DURING SURVEY TILL THE DATE OF PASSING OF APPELLATE ORDER HA D MAINTAINED ITS ST AND AND HA D FILED EVEN THE CONFIRMATIONS IN THIS REGARD BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CIT(A). THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE WA S THAT AS ABOVE STATED GOLD ORNAMENTS OF M/S. VITHALDAS ZAVERI AND SONS PVT. LTD. WERE LYING IN HIS SHOP SINCE THEIR SHOP WAS UNDER RE NOVATION. THE ASSESSEE HA D ALSO PRODUCED VOUCHERS OF TRANSFER OF GOLD FROM M/S.VITHALDAS ZAVERI AND SONS PVT. LTD. TO THE ASSESSEE AND THEIR ENTRY IN THE STOCK REGISTER MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE ON COMPUTER. IN THE TOTALITY OF THE ABO VE SAID FACTS AND C IRCUMSTANCES AND THE STAND OF ASSESSEE, I FIND NO MERIT IN THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW IN HOLDING THAT PURCHASE VALUE OF AFORESAID AMANAT GOLD WAS TO BE ADDED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE, SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO ESTABLIS H THAT THE SAID GOLD DOES NOT BELONGED TO IT. I FIND NO MERIT IN THE STAND OF REVENUE AUTHORITIES IN THIS REGARD, WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HA D NOT ONLY FILED THE CORRESPONDING VOUCHERS TRANSFERRING THE ORNAMENTS TO THE ASSESSEE BUT ALSO FILED CONFIRMATIONS FROM THE THIRD PARTY AND HA D ALSO SHOWN ENTRIES IN STOCK REGISTER IN THIS REGARD, THEN IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE FOUND TO THE CONTRARY THAT THE SAID GOLD DOES NOT BELONG TO M/S. ITA NO. 1537 /P U N/20 1 6 SHRI YOGESH V ZAVERI 9 VITHALDAS ZAVERI AND SONS PVT. LTD. AND WAS NOT KEPT WITH THE ASSESSEE AS ANAMAT GOLD, THERE WA S NO MERIT IN REJECTING THE EXPLANATION OF ASSESSEE AND MAKING THE AFORESAID ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, ADDITION OF 23,22,760/ - I S DELETED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE . THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THUS, ALLOWED. 1 3 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 25 TH DAY OF APRIL , 201 8 . SD/ - (SUSHMA CHOWLA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE ; DATED : 25 TH APRIL , 201 8 . GCVSR / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT ; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 2 , AURANGABAD ; 4. THE PR. CIT - 2 , AURANGABAD ; 5. 6. , , , - / DR SMC , ITAT, PUNE; / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER , // TRUE COPY // / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE