M/s Chinnansons Jewellers, Palakkad V. DCIT, Trichur

ITSSA 129/COCH/2004

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8134 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 year(s) 6 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-06-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 03-12-2004
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S VIJAYAPRABHA
• Assessee Lawyers: JOSE POTTOKKARAN

Judgement Text

1 IT(SS)A NO. 129/COCH/2004 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN (JM) AND SHRI B.R. BASKA RAN(AM) I.T(SS)A NO. 129/COCH/2004 (BLOCK PERIOD 01-04-1995 TO 20-11-2001) M/S CHINNANSONS JEWELLERS VS THE DY.CIT, CENT.CI R. G.B. ROAD, PALAKKAD THRISSUR PAN : AABFC7593F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI JOSE POTTOKKARAN RESPONDENT BY : SMT. S. VIJAYAPRABHA DATE OF HEARING : 18-04-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22-06-2012 O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN (JM) THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A)-I, KOCHI DATED 25-10-2004 AND PERTAIN S TO BLOCK PERIOD 01-04-1995 TO 20- 11-2001. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS ADDIT ION OF RS. 12,97,310 TOWARDS PURCHASES. 3. SHRI JOSE POTTOKKARAN, THE LD.RPERESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE PURCHASES WERE ENTERED IN THE PRIMARY BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED THE PURCHASE VOUCHERS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFICATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSE E ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE PARTICULARS OF THE PARTIES FROM WHOM THE PURCHASES WERE MADE WERE NOT AVAILABLE. 2 IT(SS)A NO. 129/COCH/2004 ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE FOR CASH PURCHAS ES IT MAY NOT BE NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN THE DETAILS OF THE PARTIES. THEREFORE, TH E ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, SMT. VIJAYAPRABHA, THE LD.DR SU BMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED THE PURCHASE BILLS, WHICH COULD NOT BE VER IFIED AT ALL. THAT SHOWS THE BOGUS NATURE OF THE TRANSACTION. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE ENT ERED THE SALES AND OTHER EXPENSES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THE PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASS ESSEE ON 19-11-2001 WERE NOT RECORDED. IT IS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN WHY TH E PURCHASES ALONE WERE NOT RECORDED WHEN THE SALES AND OTHER EXPENSES WERE RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ON 19-11- 2001. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, ACCORDING TO THE LD.DR , THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE PURCHASES MADE ON 19-11-2001 WERE NOT RECORDED IN THE CASH BOOK. HOWEVER, THE S ALES AND OTHER EXPENSES OF THE SAME DAY WERE RECORDED. THIS SHOWS THAT THE ASSESS EE PURCHASED THE GOLD JEWELLERY OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. WHEN THE PURCHASES W ERE NOT RECORDED WHICH WAS DETECTED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION, THI S TRIBUNAL FIND THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AU THORITY. ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 22 ND JUNE, 2012. SD/- SD/- (B.R. BASKARAN) (N.R.S. GANESAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER COCHIN, DT : 22 ND JUNE, 2012 PK/- 3 IT(SS)A NO. 129/COCH/2004 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) 5. THE DR (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH