Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.23 seconds)
Shri Jaliluddin Jummat Ali Shekh, ... vs The Acit-Central Circle-2,, Rajkot on 11 January, 2023 cites

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Mahendra N. Shah on 20 October, 2005

14.2 The above details furnished by the assessee were not doubted by the authorities below. As such the doubt of the revenue is this that the proprietor of M/s Brij Mohan Jewellers namely Shri Sandeep Gupta in the statement has stated that the fine gold weighing 949.18 grams was sold to the assessee dated 26 October 2017 which was personally handed over to the assessee whereas as per the assessee the gold was couriered to him (the assesse). The Revenue also found that the seized gold was booked for courier dated 24 October 2017 and was in transit from 25 October 2017. As such there was mismatch in the statement furnished by Shri Sandeep Gupta and the submission made by the assessee and further the fact that seized gold was in transit with courier service from 24 October 2017. Based on the above, a doubt crept in the mind of the AO and therefore the AO held documentary evidences produced with regard to purchase of gold dated 26 October 2017 are afterthought and futile effort to give color of genuineness to an unaccounted transaction. In the result the addition was made in the hands of the assessee on protective basis viz a viz the additions in the hands of the Sandeep Gupta (M/s Brij Mohan Jewellers) on substantive basis. Admittedly, the facts brought on record by the AO are crucial but we note that such mismatch was never confronted to the assessee for his rebuttal. Thus, it appears to us that some details has been used by the AO against the assessee behind his back which is not desirable under the provisions of law. The Hon'ble ITA No. 162/Rjt/2022 A.Y. 2018-19 8 Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mahendra N. Shah reported in 280 ITR 462, has held as under:
Gujarat High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1