M/s. Alankar Jewellers, Surat V. The ACIT., Range-9, Surat

ITA 2202/AHD/2006

• Counselvise Citation: 220220514 RSA 2006
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 8 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-07-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 01-05-2012
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 16-10-2006
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B L YADAV SRDR
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Business income; Income from undisclosed sources
• Section: 143(3); 133A; 27

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH D AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI, A.K.GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.2202 & 2253/AHD/2006 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2003-04 M/S ALANKAR JEWELLERS 4 TO 6 SHANTIVAN APARTMENT, LAMBE HANUMAN ROAD, SURAT - 395 006 PAN NO.AADFA0363F ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-9, SURAT V/S . V/S . ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE-9 SURAT M/S ALANKAR JEWELLERS, 4-6, SHANATIVAN SHOPPING CENTRE, L.H. ROAD, SURAT (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) /BY ASSESSEE SHRI CHIRAG SHAH, AR /BY REVENUE SHRI B.L. YADAV, SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 01-05-2012 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 13-07-2012 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THESE ARE CROSS-APPEALS ONE BY ASSESSEE AND ANOT HER BY REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER OF LD. COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-V, SURAT DATED 26-07-2006 FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2003-04. BOTH THE APPEALS ARE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOS ED OF BY A CONSOLIDATE ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. FIRST WE TAKE UP ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO.2202/A HD/2006 (A.Y. 03-04). ITA NO.2202 & 2253/AHD/2006 A.Y. 2003-04 M/S ALANKAR JEWELLERS V. ACIT RNG-9 SRT PAGE 2 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APP EAL:- 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER OF RS.8,54,286 ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED SALES. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS BY AVOIDING TO RECTIFY THE CALCULATION OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE GROUND OF STOCK SUPPRESSION AND GIVEN PARTLY RE LIEF OF RS.20,97,200 OUT OF RS.24,36,693 ADDED BY ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACT BY CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.4,07,134 FOR DISALLOWANCE OF LABOUR EXPENSES WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT ON REC ORD. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACT IN REGARD TO PENALTY INITIATED U/S. 271B & 271(1)(C). 5. IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT A. ADDITION OF RS.8,54,286 FOR UNDISCLOSED SALES CO NFIRMED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) MAY PLE ASE BE DELETED. B. ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF STOCK SUPPRESSION OF RS.3 39493 CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) MAY PLEASE BE DELETED. C. ADDITION OF RS.4,07,134 FOR DISALLOWANCE OF LABO UR EXPENSES CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) MAY PLEASE BE DELETED. D. INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDING U/S. 271-B & 27 1(1)(C) ON WHICH LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) H AS MAY KINDLY BE DROPPED. 3. THE FACTS AS BORNE OUT OF RECORD ARE THAT ASSESS EE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PURCHASE & SALE OF GOLD AND SILVER ORNA MENTS AND ALSO JOB WORK OF MANUFACTURING OF GOLD ORNAMENTS. DURING THE YEAR UN DER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN GROSS PROFIT OF RS.4,90,500/- ON THE GROSS RECEIPT OF RS.28,04,079/- I.E. BY SALE OF ORNAMENT OF RS.26,54 ,214 + JOB WORK RECEIPTS OF RS.1,49,865/- @ 17.49% AS COMPARED TO GP @ 20.81% D ECLARED IN THE IMMEDIATE PRECEDING YEAR. A SURVEY ACTION U/S 133A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) WAS CAR RIED OUT AT THE BUSINESS ITA NO.2202 & 2253/AHD/2006 A.Y. 2003-04 M/S ALANKAR JEWELLERS V. ACIT RNG-9 SRT PAGE 3 PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 17-10-2002. DURING THE SURVEY PROCEEDINGS, VARIOUS DISCREPANCIES WERE NOTICED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE I.E. UNACCOUNTED SALES, DISCREPANCY IN QUANTITIES O F GOLD ORNAMENT ETC., FURTHER, DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, THE STATEMENT OF SHRI JAGDISH BABUBHAI DHAKAN, ONE OF THE PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE-FIRM WAS RECORDED. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND T HE ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT WAS FRAMED THEREBY ADDITION OF RS .24,36,693/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS IN STOCKS, RS.8,54,286/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED ORNAMENT SALES AND RS.4,07,134/- ON ACCOUNT OF LABO UR EXPENDITURE TREATED AS BOGUS. AGAINST THIS ORDER, ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A), WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND SUBMISSIONS OF ASSE SSEE PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE ASSESSEE FEELING AGGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) HAS FILED SECOND APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL IS AGAINST THE CONFIRMATI ON OF ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSE SALES. LD. AUTHORIZED REPRES ENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN LAW B Y MAKING ADDITION OF RS.8,54,286/- ONLY ON THE BASIS OF THE STATEMENT OF ONE OF THE PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE-FIRM NOT CONCENTRATED OF THE EVIDENCE WHIC H IS BAD IN LAW. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE STATEMENT ON THE BASIS OF WHICH ADDITION MADE WAS OBTAINED U/S. 133A(3)(III) OF THE ACT AND SUCH STAT EMENT CANNOT BE BINDING UPON THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT AUTHOR ITIES BELOW FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT IN SHORT SPAN OF TIME 19 M ONTHS, THE ASSESSEE-FIRM COULD NOT HAVE EARNED NET PROFIT OF RS.40 LAKH. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE STATEMENT WAS TAKEN FROM ONE OF THE PARTNERS OF THE ASSESSEE-FIRM, WHO DUE TO ANXIETY CAUSED BY SUDDEN VISIT OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICIALS COULD NOT GIVE THE CORRECT FIGURE AND AFTER RECONCILIATION OF ACCOUNTS CORRECT FIGURE WAS DECLARED IN THE INCOME TAX RETURN. LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED SALES REPRESENTED THE GROSS SALES AND GROSS SALES C AN NOT BE SUBJECTED TO ITA NO.2202 & 2253/AHD/2006 A.Y. 2003-04 M/S ALANKAR JEWELLERS V. ACIT RNG-9 SRT PAGE 4 TAX. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION, HE RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENTS OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. GURUBACHHANA SINGH J JUNEJA V. CIT ((2008) 302 ITR 63 (GUJ) AND HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYA NA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. KARTAR SINGH & CO. (2008) 302 ITR 66 (P&H). HE FURTHER RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN T HE CASE OF CIT V. S KHADER KHAN SON (2008) 300 ITR 157 (MAD). IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTEN TION, WHATEVER STATEMENT IS RECORDED U/S. 133A OF THE ACT IS NOT GIVEN IN THE EVIDENTIARY VALUE OBVIOUSLY FAR THE REASONS THAT TH E OFFICER IS NOT AUTHORIZED TO ADMINISTER OATH AND TO TAKE ANY SWORN STATEMENT WHI CH ALONE HAS EVIDENTIARY VALUE AS CONTEMPLATED D UNDER THE LAW. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF S KHADER KHAN SON (SUPRA) THAT THE WORD MAY USED IN SECTION 133(3)(III) OF THE ACT, VIZ., RECOR D THE STATEMENT OF ANY PERSON WHICH MAY BE USEFUL FOR, AS RELEVANT TO, ANY PROCEE DING UNDER THIS ACT MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE MATERIAL CALLED AND STATEMENT REC ORDED FURRING THE SURVEY U/S 133A OF THE ACT ARE NOT CONCLUSIVE PIECE OF EVIDENC E BY ITSELF. 6. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. SR-DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS PASSED BY AUTHORITIES BELOW. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPLANATION AS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IS EX- FACIE AFTER-THOUGHT AND IF THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCEPTED THEN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 133A OF THE ACT AND SECTION 4 4AA WOULD BECOME REDUNDANT. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND JUDGMENTS CITED BY THE PARTIES. IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT ON THE DAY OF SURVEY SALES OUT OF BOOKS WAS DETECTED AND STATE MENT OF ONE OF THE PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE-FIRM WAS RECORDED, WHO STATED THAT HE ADMITTED UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF RS.40 LAKH FOR THE A.Y. 2002-03 FOR ALL T HE DEFECTS NOTICED IN THE BOOKS AND STOCKS WHICH WILL BE OVER AND ABOVE THE R EGULAR BUSINESS INCOME ARE BOUND TO PAY TAX ON THE SAID AMOUNT. HE FURTHER ADMITTED THAT OUT OF RS.40 LAKH ADMITTED BY RS.22,15,714/- IS INVESTED IN PURC HASE OF STOCK AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.17,54,286/- ARE IN THE FORM OF RECEIVABLE WHICH WILL ITA NO.2202 & 2253/AHD/2006 A.Y. 2003-04 M/S ALANKAR JEWELLERS V. ACIT RNG-9 SRT PAGE 5 RECORD IN BOOKS. WE FIND THAT THE ENTIRE BASIS OF A DDITION IS ON THE AFORESAID STATEMENT OF ONE OF THE PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE-FIR M. LD. CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN PARA-7.5 OF HIS ORDER, WHICH IS REPRO DUCED HEREINBELOW:- 7.5 I HAVE PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS DISCUS SED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER AND ALSO CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS AS MADE BY THE A.R AFTER ANALYZING THE FACTS AS DISCUSSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ALSO GOING THROUGH THE FINDINGS OF THE HONBLE ALLAHABD HIGH COURTS DECISION IN THE CASE OF DR. S.C. GUPTA V/S CIT (SUPRA), I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE SUB MISS ION AS MADE BY THE APPELLANT HAS NO MERIT AT ALL. AFTER ANALYZING THE FACT, IT IS SEEN THAT AT THE TIME OF SURVEY PROCEEDINGS, WHATEVER DISCLOSURE WAS MADE BY THE APPELLANT AGAINST THE UNACCOUNTED STOCK AND UNACCOU NTED RECEIVABLES WAS BASED ON STOCK OF UNACCOUNTED GOLD AND SILVER I TEMS AND ALSO ON THE BASIS OF DETAILS REGARDING UNRECORDED RECEIVABL ES AND HENCE RETRACTING FROM THE ABOVE REFERRED STATEMENTS AND B Y NOT OFFERING RS.8,54,286/- AS ITS UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR TAX PUR POSES, THE APPELLANT HAD COMMITTED A MISTAKE WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY REASO NABLE AND ACCEPTABLE BASIS FOR THAT. I, THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE REFERRED FACTS HOLD THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.8,54,286/- WAS LEGALLY JUSTIFIED AND HENCE THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. IN THE RESULT, THIS GROUND O F APPEAL IS DISMISSED. FROM THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), IT IS EVIDENT THAT HE HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE STATEMENT RECOR DED U/S. 133A OF THE ACT HAS NO EVIDENTIARY VALUE AND SAME CANNOT BE SOLE BA SIS OF ADDITION. THE LD. DR HAS NOT PLACED MATERIAL ON RECORD SUGGESTING THA T THE AMOUNT OF RS.8,54,286/- WAS NET PROFIT FROM THE UNDISCLOSED S ALE. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE ADDITION OF RS.8,54,286/- MADE BY ASSES SING OFFICER AND SUSTAINED BY LD. CIT(A) IS HEREBY DELETED. THIS GROUND OF ASS ESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 8. NEXT GROUND IS AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF ADDIT ION OF RS.24,36,963/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. LD. AUTHORIZED R EPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSES SEE WAS NOT APPRECIATED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. SR-D R RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY ASSESSING OFFICER. LD. CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THIS IN PARA 8.4 OF HIS ORDER, WHICH IS REPRODUCED HEREINBELOW:- ITA NO.2202 & 2253/AHD/2006 A.Y. 2003-04 M/S ALANKAR JEWELLERS V. ACIT RNG-9 SRT PAGE 6 8.4 I HAVE PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE WITH REGA RD TO THE ADDITION OF RS.24,36,693/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACC OUNT OF SUPPRESSION OF STOCK OF GOLD ORNAMENTS AS OBSERVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER AND ALSO CAREFULLY WENT THROUGH THE SUBMISSION AS MADE BY THE AR ON BEHALF OF THE APPEL LANT-FIRM. I HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL IMPOUNDED BY THE DEP ARTMENTAL OFFICIALS AT THE TIME OF SURVEY PROCEEDINGS AND EXAMINED ANNE XURE BF-14P NO.28 & 29 REPRESENTING THE JANGAD RECEIPTS AND IT IS FOUND THAT CERTAIN GOLD ORNAMENTS WERE RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT FIRM ON JANGAD BASIS FROM M/S. SHAKTI EXPORTS. I HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE STATEMENT AS MADE BY THE AUTHORISED SIGNATORY OF M/S. SHAKTI EXP ORTS AND IT IS SEEN THAT HE (THE AUTHORISED SIGNATORY) HAS ACCEPTED THE FACT THAT CERTAIN GOLD ORNAMENTS WERE SENT TO THE APPELLANT FIRM ON J ANGAD BASIS FOR SALE. IT IS SEEN THAT WHILE FINALIZING THE ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD REJECTED THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE ABOVE REFERRED JANGAD RECEIPTS AND THE STATEMENT OF THE AUTHORISED SIGNATORY OF M/S. SHAKTI EXPORTS WAS NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT ON THE PL EA THAT HE FAILED TO IDENTIFY THE JEWELLERY ITEMS SENT ON JANGAD BASIS T O THE PREMISES OF THE APPELLANT-FIRM. IT IS NECESSARY TO MENTION HERE THA T WHILE REJECTING THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE JANGAD RECEIPTS AS MENTIONED IN ANNEXURE BF-14-P NO.28 & 29, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT GIVE ANY CONVINCING COMMENTS. I, THEREFORE, KEEPING ALL THE ABOVE REFER RED FACTS INTO ACCOUNT, HOLD THAT THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF TH E VALUE OF 4.280 KGS. OF GOLD ORNAMENTS WHICH REPRESENTED THE QUANTITY OF GO LD ORNAMENTS RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT-FIRM ON JANGAD BASIS WAS NOT JUSTIFIED AT ALL AS THEE WERE SUFFICIENT PROOFS TO SHOW THAT SUCH QUANT ITY OF GOLD ORNAMENTS WERE RECEIVED BY WAY OF JANGAD FROM M/S. SHAKTI EXP ORTS. I, THEREFORE, DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CALCULATE THE VALUE OF GOLD ORNAMENTS RECEIVED ON JANGAD BASIS TO THE TUNE OF 4.280 KGS A ND DEDUCT THE SAME FROM THE TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.24,36,693/- MADE ON A CCOUNT OF SUPPRESSION OF STOCK AND IN THIS WAY, CONFIRM THE R EST OF THE ADDITION ON THIS COUNT, HOLDING THE SAME AS REPRESENTING THE SU PPRESSION OF STOCK ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT. IN THE RESULT, THIS G ROUND OF APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED . 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAD OBSER VED THAT IT IS APPARENT THAT ON THE DATE OF SURVEY AS PER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, QUANTITY OF STOCK WAS 14.03 KG. OF GOLD. ACCORDINGLY IN THE QUANTITY OF CLOSING STOCK IN THE TRADING ACCOUNT, IN THE OPENING STOCK OF THE TRADING ACCOUNTS FOR TH E POST SURVEY PERIOD WAS TO BE TAKEN AT 14.103 KGS. THE AO CAME TO THE CONCLUSI ON THAT THE QUANTITY OF 4.28 KG OF GOLD ORNAMENT HAD BEEN SUPPRESSED IN THE CLOSING STOCK SO WE DO ITA NO.2202 & 2253/AHD/2006 A.Y. 2003-04 M/S ALANKAR JEWELLERS V. ACIT RNG-9 SRT PAGE 7 NOT FIND ANY DEFECT IN THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT( A) AS HE HAD CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ACCEPTED THE CL AIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE QUANTITY OF GOLD WHICH WAS TAKEN FROM M/S SHAKT I EXPORT WAS AS JANGAD BASIS. THE FINDING OF LD. CIT(A) IS BASED UPON THE EVIDENCE AND COULD NOT BE CONTROVERTD BY LD. DR. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A). THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 10. NEXT GROUND IS AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF ADDI TION OF RS.4,07,134/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF LABOUR EXPENSES WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT ON RECORD. LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT AUTHORITIES BELOW FAI LED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE WAGE REGISTER WAS DULY SUBMITTED BEFORE AS SESSING OFFICER AND THIS MATERIAL PIECE OF EVIDENCE WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY TH E AUTHORITIES BELOW. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT AO INSISTED FROM PLACING ON RECORD AND CONFIRMATION ON THE LABOUR ALSO FURNISHED OF THEIR PRESENT ADDRESSE S. IT IS SUBMITTED BY AR THAT LABOURERS ARE KEPT ON AD HOC BASIS AND MOST OF THE WORKERS ARE OUT OF STATE, THEREFORE, THEIR ADDRESSES COULD NOT BE FURNISHED. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS INCUMBENT UPON THE ASSESSEE T O FURNISH THE PARTICULARS OF ADDRESSES OF THE LABOURERS AND THEIR CONFIRMATIO N. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE WAGE REGISTER AS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IS FABRI CATED AND NOR RELEVANT CAN BE PLACED ON SUCH WAGE REGISTER WHEN THE RECIPIENT OF THE WAGE REGISTER CANNOT CONFIRM THE RECEIPT OF THE SAME. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT MAINTAIN ANY REGISTE R/RECORD FROM ITS COULD BE SUBSTANTIVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ACTUALLY CARRIED FORWARD THE LABOUR WORKS THROUGH THE LABOURERS. 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL FINDING THAT I T WAS INCUMBENT UPON THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED W ITH THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE. WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT INTO THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE WAGE REGISTER WAS PRODUCED BEFORE AO WHERE IN THE FACTUM OF RECEIPT OF THE WAGE CAN BE VERIFIED FROM THE PAPER BOOK. IT IS TRANSPIRED THAT THE ITA NO.2202 & 2253/AHD/2006 A.Y. 2003-04 M/S ALANKAR JEWELLERS V. ACIT RNG-9 SRT PAGE 8 ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE WAGE REGISTER FROM THAT IT CAN BE NOTICED THAT LABOURERS PUT THEIR RESPECTIVE SIGNATURE ON THE SAI D WAGE REGISTER BUT MERELY PRODUCTION OF THE WAGE REGISTER IS NOT SUFFICIENT I N THE PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCES AS THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO CORROBORATE FROM OTHER EV IDENCES AS WHAT KIND OF WORK WAS GOT DONE FROM THE SAID LABOURERS. IT IS NO T ACCEPTABLE THAT NOBODY WOULD IN FOR PRECIOUS METAL AS GOLD TO ANY PERSON W HOSE PERMANENT ADDRESS IS NOT KNOWN. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY INTO THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A). THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEE S APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 12. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLO WED. COMING TO REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO.2253/AHD/2006. 13. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED SOLE GROUND, WHICH READS AS UNDER:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING AN ADDITION OF RS.20,97,200/- (RS.24,36,693 RS.3,39,493) MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN STOCK AS PER ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S. 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 DATED 31.01.2006. 14. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) I S ERRONEOUS AND HE RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) HAS DULY GIVEN THE CORRECT OF THE STOCK WHICH WAS TAKEN ON JANGAD BASIS. 15. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED TH E MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS NOT CONTROVERTED BY THE REVENUE THAT RECEIVED OF M/S. SHAKTI EXPORT WAS IMPOUNDED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY AC TION. THEREFORE, SUCH RECEIPTS WERE NOT FABRICATED. WE FIND THAT ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAS DISCARDED THE SUBMISSION OF ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS THAT THE REPRES ENTATIVE OF M/S SHAKTI EXPORT COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE MATERIAL SENT FOR ON JANGAD BASIS. WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY INTO THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) A S THE REVENUE NEITHER BEFORE LD. CIT(A) NOR BEFORE US COULD CONTROVERT TH E FACT OF JANGAD ITA NO.2202 & 2253/AHD/2006 A.Y. 2003-04 M/S ALANKAR JEWELLERS V. ACIT RNG-9 SRT PAGE 9 IMPOUNDED, WHEREIN THE QUANTITY WAS MENTIONED. THIS GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 16. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 17. IN COMBINED RESULT, APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS PARTLY AL LOWED AND THAT OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE AT CAPTION PAGE. SD/- SD/- (A.K.GARODIA) (KUL BHARAT) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AHMEDABAD, *DKP - 13/07/2012 '#$ % & ' ' ' ' ())*+, ())*+, ())*+, ())*+, '-+ '-+ '-+ '-+ / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. ',/* 01 / APPELLANT 2. (2301 / RESPONDENT 3. %)4 3 35 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 3 35- ',/* / CIT (A) 5. +8 9/3 ()))4, 3 ',/*/3 ')4, '#$ % / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 9 <= > ?* / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ ' , /TRUE COPY/ @,/# 3 , / 3 ',/*/3 ')4, '#$ % & STRENGTHEN PREPARATION & DELIVERY O F ORDERS IN THE ITAT 1) DATE OF TAKING DICTATION 29/06 2) DIRECT DICTATION BY MEMBER STRAIGHT ON COMPUTER/LAPTOP/DRAGON DICTATE NO 3) DATE OF TYPING & DRAFT ORDER PLACE BEFORE MEMBER 4/07 4) DATE OF CORRECTION 4/07 5) DATE OF FURTHER CORRECTION 6) DATE OF INITIAL SIGN BY MEMBERS 10/07 7) ORDER UPLOADED ON 13/07 8) ORIGINAL DICTATION PAD-PART HAS BEEN ENCLOSED IN THE FILE YES 9) FINAL ORDER AND 2 ND COPY SEND TO BENCH CLERK ON 13/07