ITO, Jaipur V. M/S LAKHI GEMS, Jaipur

ITA 99/JPR/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 9923114 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-09-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 17-07-2012
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 30-01-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Loose papers; Opportunity of being heard; Tangible material; Difference of opinion; Assessment record; Reason to believe; Change of opinion; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 133A; 147; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOMETAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH: JAIPUR (BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI AND SHRI T.R. MEENA) I.T.A. NO. 99/JP/2012 ASSTT. YEAR- 2005-06 PAN NO. AAAFL 5913 D THE I.T.O. M/S LAKHI GEMS, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR. VRS. II FLOOR, HANUMAN JI KA RASTA, JOHARI BAZAR, JAIPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY :- SHRI RAJESH OJHA ASSESSEE BY :- SHRI P.C. PARWAL. DATE OF HEARING : 11/09/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19/09/2014 O R D E R PER: T.R. MEENA, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15/11/2011 OF THE LEARNED C.I.T.(A)-I, JAIPUR FOR TH E A.Y. 2005-06. THE EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:- WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN:- 1. QUASHING THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 147/1 48 BY ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL WITHOUT PR OVIDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE A.O AND FURTHER H OLDING THAT THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CONSTITUTES CHANGE O F OPINION DESPITE THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW T HAT THE A.O. HAS SPECIFICALLY CONSIDERED ANNEXURE-A-55 WHILE FRAMING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER ON 28/12/2007. ITA 99/JP/2012 ITO VS. LAKHI GEMS 2 2. DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 71,66,246/- MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF THE ENTRIES APPEARING ON APPROVAL MEMO ( ANNEXURE A-44) IMPOUNDED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY U/S 133 A HOLDING THAT THE GROSS PROFIT ALONE SHOULD BE WORKED OUT FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAXATION. 3. GIVING A DIRECTION TO ALLOW SET OFF OF THE INCOME WORKED OUT ON THE BASIS OF APPROVAL MEMO AGAINST THE INCOME ALREA DY TAXED IN THE CASE OF M/S BIHARI LAL HOLA RAM IN A.Y. 2006 -07 DESPITE THE FACT THAT NO CONSOLIDATED WORKING OF UNRECORDED PURCHASE/SALES TRANSACTIONS OF THE GOODS COVERED IN ALL THE APPROVAL MEMOS IMPOUNDED FROM THE VARIOUS PREMISES OF THE GROUP CONCERNS AND THE BIFURCATION OF THE SAME INTO UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT AND UNDISCLOSED INCOME THERE ON WAS COMPLIED. 2. THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL IS AGAINST QUASHING TH E REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 147/148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED AS THE ACT) WITHOUT PROVIDING AN OPPORTUNIT Y OF BEING HEARD AND ON CHANGE OF OPINION. THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN INCOME F ROM BUSINESS AND OTHER SOURCE. A SURVEY U/S 133 OF THE ACT WAS CARRIE D OUT ON 18/5/2005. THE CASE FOR A.Y. 2006-07 WAS ASSESSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 29/12/2008. IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED THAT FOLLOWING ANNE XURES WERE IMPOUNDED IN CONSEQUENCES TO THE SURVEY CONDUCTED A ND THE SAME WERE NOT VERIFIED FROM AUDITED ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM. ANNEXURE NATURE OF TRANSACTIONS REMARKS AS PER ASSTT. ORDER A-55 (FOUND FROM KHUSHBOO JEWELLERS GOODS SENT ON APPROVAL RELATED TO F.Y. 2004-05 NOT VERIFIED FROM ORIGINAL BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. ITA 99/JP/2012 ITO VS. LAKHI GEMS 3 THE ASSESSING OFFICER GAVE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY O F BEING HEARD ON THIS ISSUE, WHICH WAS AVAILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS OBSER VED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT ANNEXURE-A/55 WAS FOUND AND IMPOUNDED D URING THE COURSE OF SURVEY U/S 133A OF THE ACT FROM KHUSHBOO JEWELLERS , IN WHICH, GOODS WERE SENT FOR APPROVAL, WHICH WERE NOT VERIFIED FROM T HE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TH AT THESE DOCUMENTS AS PER ANNEXIRE-A-55 WERE PERTAINED AND CONSIDERED I N CASE OF M/S KHUSHBOO JEWELLERS, PROPRIETARY CONCERN OF SMT. CHAN CHAL LAKHI. IT IS CLAIMED THAT ANNEXURE-A-55 HAD NOT BEEN CONSIDERED IN SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER OBSERVED THAT THESE ARE BINDED APPROVAL MEMOS REPRESENTING GOODS REMOVED FROM BUSINESS PLACE. THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT SUBMITTED ANY D OCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT GOODS SO GIVEN ON APPROVAL M EMO WAS ENTERED IN REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR IT WAS RECEIVED BACK AND WHEN IT WAS SOLD. THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT MENTIONED ANYTHING REGARDING DATE OF EXHIBITION, PLACE OF EXHIBITION, MANNER OF EXHIBITION AND EXPENSES INCUR RED IN THIS REGARD TO PROVE THAT THE GOODS WERE REMOVED FROM THE SHOW ROOM FOR DISPLAYING IN THE EXHIBITION. FURTHER REGARDING RATE GIVEN IN THE APPROVAL MEMO, THE ASSESSEE HAD OBJECTED THAT IN SOME CASES RATE IS VE RY HIGH AND IS MORE THAN 100 TIMES OF THE ACTUAL PRICE. THE LEARNED ASSE SSING OFFICER FOUND THAT WHATEVER PRICE IS MENTIONED BY THE ASSESSEE, NO THING CAN BE DONE IN ITA 99/JP/2012 ITO VS. LAKHI GEMS 4 THIS REGARD AT THE LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT. IT IS FURTH ER HELD THAT WHATEVER ITEM IS OF VERY HIGH QUALITY AND IT IS OF RATE CUT AND S IZE AND SO HIGH PRICE WAS MENTIONED AGAINST THAT ITEM. THE LEARNED ASSESSING O FFICER CONCLUDED THAT IT IS VERY MUCH CLEAR THAT TRANSACTION RECORDED IN THE APPROVAL MEMO WAS UNACCOUNTED STOCK SENT OUT OF BUSINESS PREMISES. THE REFORE, THE SAME WAS TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED STOCK LYING OUT OF BUSINESS PREMISES ON THE LAST DAY OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR. HE HAS TAKEN A RATE ON THE BA SIS OF RATE MENTIONED IN THE APPROVAL MEMOS. IN CASE OF SOME APPROVAL MEMOS, WHERE RATE IS NOT MENTIONED. IT WAS TAKEN FROM THE SIMILAR ITEM MENTIO NED IN OTHER APPROVAL MEMOS. CONSIDERING THE RATE MENTIONED IN APPROVAL M EMOS AS SALE PRICE, COST PRICE IS COMPUTED AFTER DEDUCTION GP @ 16.16% A S DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ACCEPTED BY THE HONBLE ITAT FROM THE S ALE PRICE. TOTAL SALE VALUE OF THIS ANNEXURE CAME TO RS. 85,47,526/- AND AFTER DEDUCTION G.P. TOTAL COST COMES TO RS. 71,66,247/- WHICH IS ADDED BACK IN THE ASSESSEES INCOME AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN STOCK. 3. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSE SSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LEARNED CIT(A), WH O HAD ALLOWED THE APPEAL BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 4.1 I HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE A.O . AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AR AND THE ASSESSMENT RECORD OF THE APPELLANT. THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL IS ACCEPT ED. THE FOLLOWING FACTS EMERGE: ITA 99/JP/2012 ITO VS. LAKHI GEMS 5 I) A SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED ON 18/8/2005 ON THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. II) A RETURN WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 31/10/2005 I.E . AFTER THE SURVEY. III) THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY A ND NOTICE U/S 142(1) WAS ISSUED ON 20/12/2007 WHEREIN IN POINT NO. 3, IT WAS MENTIONED THAT IT WAS CONTEMPLATE D TO REJECT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 145(3) OF THE IT ACT WITH ENHANCEMENT IN PURCHASE AN D SALE ON THE BASIS OF TRANSACTION OF PURCHASE AND SA LES RECORDED IN DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING SURVEY WHICH ALSO EFFECT REASONABLE INCREASE IN YOUR G.P. RATE. IV) A REPLY WAS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE ITS LETTER DA TED 22/12/2007 WHEREIN SUBMISSIONS WERE MADE REGARDING SLIPS/LOOSE PAPERS IMPOUNDED DURING SURVEY. V) AN ORDER U/S 143(3) WAS PASSED ON 28/12/2007 WHEREIN ON PAGE 2, IT WAS MENTIONED THAT SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED AND DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAD BEEN IDENTIFIED AS PER NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF IT ACT DATED 20/12/2007 ISSUED IN THE CASE OF BEHARILAL HOLARAM, A SISTER CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM AS ALL THE INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS HAD BEEN OWNED BY THE SAID FIRM. VI) AFTER THE MATTER WAS FINALLY ADJUDICATED UPON BY THE HONBLE ITAT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE ITS OR DER (SUPRA) DATED 31/12/2008 THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WA S REOPENED U/S 147 BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 DATED 30/3/2010. ITA 99/JP/2012 ITO VS. LAKHI GEMS 6 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, IT IS CLEAR THAT REOPENI NG OF THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 147 WAS BAD IN LAW AND TANTA MOUNT TO CHANGE OF OPINION AND IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KELVINATOR OF I NDIA LTD. 320 ITR 561 (SC) BY THE APEX COURT. SINCE ALL THE MA TERIAL ON RECORD SHOWS THAT THE DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING THE COU RSE OF SURVEY WERE BEFORE THE A.O. AT THE TIME OF DETERMINI NG THE INCOME U/S 143(3) AND HAD BEEN CONSIDERED BY HIM, T HE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN REOPENED LEGITI MATELY BECAUSE IT CONSTITUTES CHANGE OF OPINION. 4. NOW THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LEARNE D D.R. ARGUED THAT THERE IS NO CHANGE OF OPINION IN THIS CASE AS SUCH, THE APPROVAL MEMO HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28/12/2007. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICE R RIGHTLY REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 148 OF THE ACT AFTER RECORDING THE REASONS. 5. AT THE OUTSET, THE LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE S UBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING OF P RECIOUS AND SEMI PRECIOUS STONES AT 901, SECOND FLOOR, NARENDRA PLAZ A, GANGA MATA STREET, GOPAL JI KA RASTA, JOHARI BAZAR, JAIPUR. THREE OTHER CONCERNS NAMELY M/S SIDDNATH JEWELLS, M/S KHUSHBOO JEWELLERS AND M/S ROYA L GEMS SOURCE ARE ALSO ENGAGED IN SIMILAR BUSINESS FROM THE SAME PLAC E. ANOTHER SISTER CONCERN M/S BIHARI LAL HOLA RAM IS CONDUCTING ITS B USINESS AT 75, GOPAL JI ITA 99/JP/2012 ITO VS. LAKHI GEMS 7 KA RASTA, JOHARI BAZAR, JAIPUR. A SURVEY U/S 133 OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED ON BOTH THE PREMISES. AFTER SURVEY, THE ASSESSEE AN D ITS GROUP CONCERN FILED THE RETURN FOR A.Y. 2005-06 AND 2006-07 AFTER CONSIDERING THE PAPERS AND EXCESS STOCK FOUND IN SURVEY. ASSESSMENT FOR A. Y. 2005-06 AND 2006- 07 WERE CONCLUDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN SCRUTI NY U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT AFTER MAKING CERTAIN ADDITIONS. IN SURVEY SHRI NARENDRA LAKHI IN HIS STATEMENT DATED 18/8/2005 STATED THAT AT THE PREMIS ES 75, GOPAL JI KA RASTA, STOCK OF ALL THE CONCERNS ARE LYING. CONSIDE RING THE SAME THE SURVEY PARTY DETERMINED THE EXCESS STOCK AT RS. 1,79,35,02 3/-, WHICH WAS SURRENDERED IN CASE OF BIHARI LAL HOLA RAM IN A.Y. 2006-07. HOWEVER, AFTER CONSIDERING THE MISTAKE, M/S BIHARI LAL HOLARAM OFF ERED EXCESS STOCK AT RS. 1,35,61,270/- WHICH WAS DETERMINED BY THE A.O. AT RS . 1,58,38,634/- BUT REDUCED BY THE CIT(A) TO RS. 1,38,03,608/-. THE LEAR NED ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED ORIGINAL ORDER IN THE APPELLANTS CASE U/S 1 43(3) OF THE ACT ON 28/12/2007 AND ASSESSMENT WAS MADE AT RS. 11,56,650/ - AS AGAINST RS. 1,67,349/- DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN. THE ASSESSING OFFICER GAVE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT ON 20/ 12/2007 BEFORE CONCLUDING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. AFTER CONSIDERI NG THE SAME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT BY MAKIN G TRADING ADDITION OF RS. 9,78,640/- AND DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES OF RS. 1 0,657/-. AFTER APPEAL, THE INCOME IS ASSESSED AT RS. 6,46,633/-. THE LEARN ED ASSESSING OFFICER ITA 99/JP/2012 ITO VS. LAKHI GEMS 8 ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT ON 30/3/2010 ON T HE BASIS OF FOLLOWING REASONS: THIS IS A CASE OF A FIRM. RETURN DECLARING RS. 1,67 ,349/- INCOME WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 31/10/2005 FOR THE A.Y. 20 05-06. THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE SAID YEAR WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3 ) ON 28/12/2007 AT THE ASSESSED INCOME OF RS. 11,56,650/ -. A SURVEY U/S 133A OF THE IT ACT, 1961 WAS CONDUCTED ON 18/8/2005. THE SURVEY YEAR I.E. A.Y. 2006-07 WAS ASSESSED U/S 143(3) ON 29 /12/2008. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, A FINDING WAS GIVEN BY THE A.O . THAT FOLLOWING ANNEXURE WERE IMPOUNDED IN CONSEQUENCES TO THE SURV EY CONDUCTED AND THE SAME WERE NOT VERIFIED FROM AUDITED ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM. ANNEXURE NATURE OF TRANSACTION REMARKS AS PER ASSTT . ORDER A-55 (FOUND FROM KHUSHBOO JEWELLERS) GOODS SENT ON APPROVAL RELATED TO F.Y. 2004-05 NOT VERIFIED FROM ORIGINAL BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE APPROXIMATE VALUE OF THE ABOVE ANNEXURE COMES AT AROUND RS. 49,17,603/-. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE STATED FACTS, I H AVE A REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT WITHI N THE MEANING OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147 OF THE I.T. ACT ON ACCOUNT OF FAILURE ON THE PART OF ASSESSEE TO FURNISH TRUE PARTICULARS OF INCOME FOR THE ACCOUNTING PERIOD RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2005-06. I, THER EFORE, CONSIDER THIS A FIT CASE FOR REOPENING FOR THE REASSESSMENT FOR THE SAID ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE ASSESSEE RAISED OBJECTION VIDE LETTER DATED 04/1 2/2010 TO THE NOTICE U/S 148 STATING THAT ALL THE DOCUMENTS FOR WHICH R EASONS FOR ASSESSMENT ITA 99/JP/2012 ITO VS. LAKHI GEMS 9 HAS BEEN RECORDED HAD ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED DURIN G THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND IN CASE OF SMT. CHANCHAL LAKHI FROM WHOSE PREMISES, THIS ANNEXURE WAS FOUND AND IMPOUNDED . THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED ALL THE ENTRIES MADE IN THESE LOOSE P APERS AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE EVEN THEN THE L EARNED ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED THAT THESE PAPERS HAS NOT BEEN CONSI DERED IN ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. HE PARTICULARLY DRAWN OUR ATTENTION ON L ETTER DATED 3 RD DECEMBER, 2007 ADDRESSED TO ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR I N POINT NO. 2 AND SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS A SPECIFIC QUERY FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SPECIFIC REPLY FROM THE ASSESSEE, WHICH HAD BEEN CON SIDERED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IN ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. THEREFORE, IT IS SECOND THOUGHT OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ON SAME MATERIAL FOR WHICH ACTION U/S 148 OF THE ACT IS NOT JUSTIFIED AS HELD IN CASE OF ITO VS. NAWAB MEER BARKAT ALI KHAN BAHADUR 97 ITR 239. IT IS WELL SETTLED LAW THAT ACTION U/S 147 OF THE ACT CANNOT BE TAKEN ON THE BASIS OF REASON TO SUSPE CT OR ON CHANGE OF OPINION FOR WHICH HE RELIED UPON THE DECISION IN TH E CASE OF CIT VS. KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD. 320 ITR 561 (SC) AND ASIAN PAINT LTD. VS. DCIT 2008 TIOL 698 (MUM HC), THEREFORE, IT IS ARGUED THAT REOPENING U/S 147 OF THE ACT IS ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW AND IS DIRECTED TO BE QUASHED. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IN THIS CASE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT LEARNED ITA 99/JP/2012 ITO VS. LAKHI GEMS 10 ASSESSING OFFICER IN ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT HAD MADE S PECIFIC QUERY ON ANNEXURE-A-55 AND SPECIFIC REPLY WAS FILED BY THE AS SESSEE IN ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT, WHICH HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER. AFTER CONSIDERING THE REPLY, A DETAILED ORDER HAS BEEN PA SSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AS PER LAW, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER I S NOT AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S 147 OF THE ACT ON REASON TO SUSPECT OR O N CHANGE OF OPINION. EVEN ANY WRONG DOING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE REMITTED THROUGH SECTION 147 OF THE ACT AS RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNE D AR. IN THIS CASE, ONLY CHANGE OF OPINION IS THERE AND THERE IS NO TANGIBLE MATERIAL BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT TH ERE WAS ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME FROM ASSESSMENT. THUS, THE FIRST GROUND OF AP PEAL OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 7. GROUNDS NO. 2 AND 3 OF THE APPEAL ARE INTERLINKE D. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF LOO SE PAPERS IMPOUNDED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY AT RS. 71,66,246/-, WHIC H HAS BEEN DELETED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN PARA 5.3 OF ITS ORDER. IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT IT IS NOT CLEAR FROM THE VALUATION OF STOCK AS PER THE ORIGIN AL MEMO IN ANNEXURE-A- 55 WAS DONE FROM THE ANNEXURES OF THE ORDER AT RS. 8 5,47,526/- AT THE TIME OF REOPENING, AS PER THESE APPROVAL MEMOS, THE GOODS WERE VALUED AT RS. 49,17,603/-. IT IS ALSO MENTIONED THAT ANNEXURE -A-55 WAS FOUND FROM PREMISES OF M/S KHUSHBOO JEWELLERS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SMT. ITA 99/JP/2012 ITO VS. LAKHI GEMS 11 CHANCHAL LAKHI VIDE HER LETTER DATED 07/12/2007 HAD ADMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THESE TRANSACTIONS PERTAINED TO HER, WHICH HAS BEEN CONSIDERED IN HER ASSESSMENT ORDER BY THE LEARNED A SSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, THE SAME ANNEXURE CANNOT BE USED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AS THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION IN MAKING ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS FURTHER HELD THAT TRANSACTION ON ANNEXURE-A-55 P ERTAINED TO PERIOD 29/9/2004 TO 30/12/2004 AND GOODS WERE RETURNED BAC K WITHIN THREE MONTHS TO THE PARTIES WHEREAS SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED O N 18/8/2005 AND IT HAS BEEN EXPLAINED THAT THE GOODS MENTIONED IN ANNE XURE A-55 WORTH RS. 55,22,767/- WAS RETURNED BACK AND REMAINING GOODS OF RS. 21,77,467/- WERE SOLD. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GIVEN DETAILED FINDI NG ON PAGES 6 AND 7 OF ITS ORDER, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE LEARNED DR. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN BOTH GROUNDS R AISED BY THE REVENUE. ACCORDINGLY, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE R EVENUE ON BOTH THE GROUNDS. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19/09/2014. SD/- SD/- (R.P. TOLANI) (T.R. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JAIPUR, DATED : 19 TH SEPTEMBER, 2014 * RANJAN ITA 99/JP/2012 ITO VS. LAKHI GEMS 12 COPY FORWARDED TO :- 1. THE ITO, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR. 2. M/S LAKHI GEMS, JAIPUR. 3. THE CIT (A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE D/R GUARD FILE (I.T.A. NO. 99/JP/2012) BY ORDER, AR ITAT JAIPUR.