P & S JEWELLERY LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT 5(2), MUMBAI

ITA 688/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3689 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 02-02-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 24-01-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B SATYNARAYAN RAJA DR
• Assessee Lawyers: BHARAT DESAI
• Section: 143(3); 5(2); 234B; 2

Judgement Text

, , C, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES C, MUMBAI , , , BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.688/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 M/S. P & S JEWELLERY LTD., 5 TH FLOOR, PLOT NO.A/56, ROAD NO.1, M.I.D.C, ANDHERI (EAST) MUMBAI-400093 / VS. DCIT 5(2) AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. RD. MUMBAI- (ASSESSEE ) (REVEN UE) P.A. NO. AAACP3737A !' / ASSESSEE BY SHRI BHARAT DESAI (AR) / REVENUE BY SHRI B. SATYNARAYAN RAJA (DR) # $ % & / DATE OF HEARING : 21/04/2016 % & / DATE OF ORDER: 29/04/2016 / O R D E R PER ASHWANI TANEJA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER): THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), MUMBAI-9 {(IN SHORT CIT(A)}, DATED 2.11.2012 PASSED AGAINS T ASSESSMENT P & S JEWELLERY LTD. 2 ORDER U/S 143(3) DATED 30.12.2011 FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2009-10 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1.THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 67,40898/- MADE BY THE LEARNED DY. CIT AS ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT ON ACCOUNT OF AN ALLEGED DIFFERENCE BETW EEN THE STOCK DISCLOSED TO THE BANK AND AS PER THE FINA L ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT. 2. THE REASONS GIVEN IN RELATION TO THE SAID ADDITI ON BOTH BY THE LEARNED DY.CIT AND THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) AND INCORRECT AND UNJUSTIFIED. 3. THE LEARNED DY.CIT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LEVYING INTERESTS UNDER SECTIONS 234B AND 234COF THE ACT. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, ARGUMENTS WERE MADE B Y MS. BHARAT DESAI, AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND BY SHRI B. SATYNARAYAN RAJA, DEPAR TMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. 3. THE SOLITARY ISSUE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS WITH RE GARD TO ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN THE FORM OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE AM OUNT OF STOCK AS PER THE STOCK STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE A SSESSEE TO ITS BANK AND AS PER THE AMOUNT SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET FILED ALONG WITH RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE. 3.1. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL THAT LOWER AUTHORITIES WERE NOT ABLE TO APPRECIATE THE FACTS OF THE CASE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IN FAC T THERE WAS NO DIFFERENCE IN THE FIGURES OF STOCK. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF STOCK AS PER STOCK STATEMEN T SUBMITTED TO THE BANK WAS RS.23,85,61,482/-, WHEREA S, THE P & S JEWELLERY LTD. 3 STOCK SHOWN AS PER BALANCE SHEET WAS RS.25,18,37,12 5/-. THUS, APPARENTLY, AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF STOCK SHOWN I N THE BALANCE SHEET WAS MORE THAN THE AMOUNT OF STOCK SHO WN IN THE STOCK STATEMENT SUBMITTED TO THE BANK, AND THER EFORE, NO ADDITION WAS LIABLE TO BE MADE IN THE CASE OF ASSES SEE. THE AO MADE ADDITION MERELY ON THE BASIS OF DIFFERENCE IN ONE OF THE ITEMS I.E. 18K GOLD. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SAME METHOD OF ACCOUNTING HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE, CO NSISTENTLY SINCE LAST MANY YEARS WHEREIN STOCK STATEMENT AND B ALANCE SHEET HAVE BEEN PREPARED ON THE SIMILAR PATTERN ON YEAR TO YEAR BASIS. 3.2. PER CONTRA, LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT FACTS NEED TO BE PROPERLY VERIFIED BEFORE ARRIVING AT PROPER CONCLUS ION IN THIS CASE. IN THE REJOINDER, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE EXPRESSED HIS WILLINGNESS TO GO BACK TO THE AO TO PROPERLY EX PLAIN THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 3.3. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHO RITIES AND SUBMISSIONS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES BEFORE US. I N RESPONSE TO OUR QUERY WITH REGARD TO ANY DIFFERENCE IN THE OPENING AMOUNTS OF STOCK AS PER STATEMENTS SUBMITTE D TO THE BANK AND AS SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.03. 2008, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL THAT REQUISITE FAC TS NEED TO BE COLLECTED IN THIS REGARD. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITT ED BY HIM THAT DUE TO VARIOUS FINANCIAL CONSTRAINS SUFFERED B Y THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, IT WAS NOT FEASIBLE TO IMMEDIATEL Y PROVIDE REQUIRED DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS, BUT THESE CAN BE PR OVIDED TO P & S JEWELLERY LTD. 4 THE AO, IF AN OPPORTUNITY WAS PROVIDED. IN VIEW OF ALL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FIND IT APPROPRIATE TO SEND THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO. THE ASSESSEE SHALL SUBMIT CO MPLETE DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS TO THE AO TO EXPLAIN ITS FACT S PROPERLY AND COMPLETELY. THE ASSESSEE SHALL ALSO SUBMIT STAT EMENTS SUBMITTED TO THE BANK AND BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.03 .2008 TO SHOW WHETHER THERE WAS ANY DIFFERENCE AT THE OPENIN G LEVEL ALSO. IN CASE DIFFERENCE IS FOUND IN OPENING FIGURE S ALSO, THEN ADDITION TO THAT EXTENT CANNOT BE MADE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSEE SHALL BRING OUT COMPLET E FACTS ON RECORD AND IS FREE TO TAKE ALL LEGAL AND FACTUAL IS SUES BEFORE THE AO. THE AO SHALL DECIDE THIS ISSUE AFTER CONSIDERIN G COMPLETE FACTS AS MAY BE BROUGHT ON RECORD FOR WHICH ADEQUAT E OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING SHALL BE GRANTED BY HIM. WIT H THESE DIRECTIONS, THIS GROUND IS SENT BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO AND MAY BE TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 4. IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE I S ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 TH APRIL, 2016. SD/- (JOGINDER SINGH) SD/- (ASHWANI TANEJA) '# / JUDICIAL MEMBER $# / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER # $ MUMBAI; ( DATED 29/4/2016 CTX? P.S/. . .