2013 (12) TMI 317 - HC - Income Tax

Unaccounted purchase - block assessment - Held that - Assessee firm is engaged in the trading of gold items of the gold ornaments and certainly, not in Air Conditioner or electrical goods - The parties in Amritsar were not having the creditworthiness. Most of them are not assessed to tax and even if one or two are assessed to tax, their worth is low, even lower than the jewellery lend by them to the assessee - There is no evidence of genuine transaction with the assessee except in one or two cases - No entry was found in the books of account mentioned by the assessee or party concerned. Nothing was reflected in the books of account of the six creditors - The explanation furnished by the assessee is not found acceptable - New gold ornaments were given and old gold ornaments were taken by the Amritsar parties - Decided against assessee. Cash found during search - Held that - The same was deposited by one Sri B.P. Saxena as explained in the statement by Sri Kanhaiya Lal, at the time of search - Inspite of ample opportunities given, neither Sri Saxena was produced nor any other documentary evidence was filed in support of the claim - Decided against assessee. Interest under Section 158BFA(1) and 220(2) - Held that - Following Punjab Skin Co. vs. Union of India 2001 (2) TMI 18 - SUPREME Court - No authority has power to reduce or waive the interest levied under Section 158BFA for the block assessment - The charging of interest is mandatory - Decided against assessee.

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 69 of the Income-Tax Act regarding unexplained investment in gold ornaments.
2. Applicability of Section 158BFA(1) and Section 132B in relation to seized assets and tax default.
3. Creditworthiness of parties providing gold ornaments and addition of unaccounted jewellery.
4. Addition of cash amount and verification of source.
5. Charging of interest under Section 158BFA(1) and 220(2) of the Act.

Issue 1: Interpretation of Section 69 - Unexplained Investment in Gold Ornaments:

The assessee challenged the addition of Rs.14,01,171 as unexplained jewellery found during a search operation. The assessee claimed the jewellery was taken on credit from six parties of Amritsar. The Tribunal considered the creditworthiness of these parties and found discrepancies. The Tribunal held that the credit of gold ornaments by the Amritsar parties was not established, and the explanation provided by the assessee was not acceptable. The Tribunal's decision was based on the lack of evidence supporting the credit transactions and the mismatch between the claimed transactions and the parties' financial status. The Tribunal's decision was upheld as there was no evidence to prove the jewellery was given on credit basis.

Issue 2: Applicability of Sections 158BFA(1) and 132B - Seized Assets and Tax Default:

The second appeal involved the addition of Rs.20,000 found during a search. The amount was claimed to be deposited by a third party for an Air Conditioner payment. However, the lack of evidence and the nature of the assessee's business raised doubts about the source of the amount. The lower authorities confirmed the addition, emphasizing the lack of verification and supporting documents. The Court agreed with the lower authorities, stating that without proper substantiation, the addition was justified.

Issue 3: Creditworthiness of Parties Providing Gold Ornaments:

The case revolved around the creditworthiness of the six parties from Amritsar who allegedly provided the unaccounted jewellery. The assessee argued that the parties had confirmed the transactions, but the Department raised doubts about their credibility. The Department highlighted discrepancies in the parties' financial records and their lack of verifiable transactions with the assessee. The Tribunal concluded that the parties did not have the creditworthiness to support the claimed transactions, leading to the dismissal of the assessee's appeal.

Issue 4: Addition of Cash Amount and Verification of Source:

Regarding the addition of Rs.20,000, the Court noted the lack of evidence linking the amount to a legitimate transaction. The nature of the business and the absence of the third party for verification raised suspicions about the source of the cash. The Court upheld the lower authorities' decision to sustain the addition due to the unexplained nature of the amount.

Issue 5: Charging of Interest under Sections 158BFA(1) and 220(2) of the Act:

The Court clarified that the interest levied under Section 158BFA for block assessment is mandatory and cannot be reduced or waived. Citing legal precedent, the Court rejected the assessee's grounds challenging the interest charges, affirming the necessity of interest payment as per the law.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed both appeals filed by the assessee, upholding the Tribunal's decisions on the substantial questions of law. The judgments favored the revenue and rejected the assessee's claims due to lack of credible evidence and discrepancies in the transactions and financial records of the involved parties.

← Previous Next →