DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE vs. SRI. KRISHNA DIAMONDS AND JEWELLERY, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 453/BANG/2023Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 August 2023AY 2018-192 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The CIT(A) held that the excess stock, admitted and voluntarily declared by the assessee, constituted normal business income and not unaccounted investment. The tribunal upheld this decision, finding no error in treating it as business income subject to normal tax rates.

What were the facts?

During a survey, excess stock of gold, precious stones, and silver was found at the assessee's business premises. The assessee admitted this excess stock, which was not recorded in the books, and agreed to pay tax on it.

What were the issues?

Whether excess stock found during a survey, admitted by the assessee and declared in the return, is business income or unaccounted investment, and on whom the onus lies to prove its nature.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 69B,Section 133A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

For Appellant: Ms. Suman Lunkar, C.A
For Respondent: Smt. Supriya Rao, O.N, Addl. CIT (DR)
Hearing: 26.07.2023Pronounced: 01.08.2023

This appeal filed by the Revenue is against the order dated 08.05.2023 passed by the CIT(A) on the following grounds of appeal:- “i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the CIT(A) was correct in holding that the excess stock found during the course of Survey U/s 133A admitted by the assessee and voluntarily declared in the return of income was normal business income and not unaccounted investment U/s 69 or 69B? ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the CIT(A) was correct in holding that the excess stock found during the course of Survey U/s 133A admitted by the assessee and voluntarily declared in the return of income was business income subject to normal rate of tax? iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the CIT(A) was correct in considering the investment in excess stock as business income of the assessee when the assessee had not brought anything on record to prove the source of such investment? iv) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the CIT(A) was correct in holding that the onus was on the AO to show that the excess stock found during the course of Survey U/s 133A and admitted by the assessee, was not relating to its normal business?”

2.

The brief facts of the case are that a survey was carried out at the business premises of M/s Sri Krishna Diamonds and Jewellery on 04/01/2018 at its registered address at No.1, Kamaraj Road, Commercial Street, Bangalore-560 001. The case was selected for compulsory scrutiny and statutory notices were issued to the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noted that on the basis of survey, it was found that there was excess stock with regard to gold and gold ornaments of 3756.50 grams, precious stones of 36.9 cent and silver article of 376 kgs and valued at Rs.2,50,51,072/- as per approved valuer, which was not disputed by the assessee at the time of recording of statement and the assessee accepted that it is excess stock which were not recorded in the books of account and agreed for paying the tax on it. The statement is as under:- “0.26 The complete valuation of the gold articles and other articles was done during the course of the survey and the entire valuation report was enclosed herewith as an annexure. As per the valuation report there is excess in various categories of the stock. The certificate is as follows:-

The excess is appearing in the books in some of the categories as shown in the valuation report. Please. comment.

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →