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

21/04/2016 सुनवाई क� तार�ख / Date of Hearing : 29/04/2016 आदेश क� तार�ख /Date of Order: आदेश / 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 against assessment

2 P & S Jewellery Ltd. order u/s 143(3) dated 30.12.2011 for the Assessment 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 between the stock disclosed to the bank and as per the final accounts of the appellant.

2. The reasons given in relation to the said addition 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.”

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 fact there was no difference in the figures of stock. It was further submitted that the aggregate amount of stock as per stock statement submitted to the bank was Rs.23,85,61,482/-, whereas, the 3 P & S Jewellery Ltd. stock shown as per balance sheet was Rs.25,18,37,125/-. Thus, apparently, aggregate amount of stock shown in the balance sheet was more than the amount of stock shown in the stock statement submitted to the bank, and therefore, no addition was liable to be made in the case of assessee. 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, consistently since last many years wherein stock statement and balance 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 conclusion in this case. In the rejoinder, Ld. Counsel of the assessee expressed his willingness to go back to the AO to properly explain the facts of the case.

3.3. We have gone through the orders of the lower authorities and submissions made by both the sides before us. In response to our query with regard to any difference in the opening amounts of stock as per statements submitted to the bank and as shown in the balance sheet as on 31.03.2008, it was submitted by the Ld. Counsel that requisite facts need to be collected in this regard. It was further submitted by him that due to various financial constrains suffered by the assessee company, it was not feasible to immediately provide required details and documents, but these can be provided to 4 P & S Jewellery Ltd. 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 complete details and documents to the AO to explain its facts properly and completely. The assessee shall also submit statements submitted to the bank and balance sheet as on 31.03.2008 to show whether there was any difference at the opening level also. In case difference is found in opening figures also, then addition to that extent cannot be made in the year under consideration. The assessee shall bring out complete facts on record and is free to take all legal and factual issues before the AO. The AO shall decide this issue after considering complete facts as may be brought on record for which adequate opportunity of hearing shall be granted by him. With these directions, this ground is sent back to the file of the AO and may be treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 29th April, 2016.