9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Addition of Rs. 44,000 under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Addition of Rs. 76,140 being the value of 63.81 carats of diamonds. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Addition of Rs. 44,000 under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 The first issue pertains to the addition of Rs. 44,000 made by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was deleted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The assessee had started maintaining books of accounts from the assessment year 1983-84 and made a cash credit entry of Rs. 44,000 on the first day of the accounting year, claiming it was from past savings. The ITO disbelieved the assessee's version of saving such an amount and added it to the income. However, the CIT(A) deleted the addition solely on the ground that the entry was made on the first day of the accounting year. The Tribunal found this approach erroneous, citing the Gujarat High Court decision in CIT vs. Mansurali Valibhai Dudhani (1984) 148 ITR 526 (Guj), which held that the assessee must explain the source of cash credit even if it appears on the first day of the accounting year. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to reconsider the evidence and decide the matter afresh in accordance with the law. 2. Addition of Rs. 76,140 being the value of 63.81 carats of diamonds The second issue concerns the addition of Rs. 76,140, representing the value of 63.81 carats of diamonds, which the assessee claimed belonged to five different parties. During a search on 6th August 1982, a box containing diamonds was seized from the assessee. Initially, the assessee stated that the diamonds belonged to M/s. Rajnikant Bros. of Bombay. Later, the assessee clarified that 109.17 carats belonged to M/s. Rajnikant Bros., and the remaining 63.81 carats belonged to five individuals from Surat, whose names and addresses were provided. In the proceedings under Section 132(5) of the Act, the ITO added the value of all the diamonds to the assessee's income. However, the CIT, in an order under Section 132(12), found that the ITO had not examined the five individuals and that the assessee's omission to mention these diamonds initially was due to a confused state of mind. The CIT directed the release of the diamonds and excluded their value from the assessee's provisional income. During the assessment proceedings, the ITO recorded statements from the five individuals, who confirmed giving the diamonds to the assessee for sale. The ITO disbelieved their statements, citing reasons such as their lack of means to purchase diamonds, absence of books of accounts, non-payment of income tax, and their relationship with the assessee. The CIT(A) accepted the assessee's version and deleted the addition, which led to the Department's appeal. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the business in diamonds often operates on trust and without formal documentation. The Tribunal emphasized that the presence of five separate packets of diamonds indicated they belonged to different individuals. The Tribunal found no reason to disbelieve the statements of the five individuals, especially since the assessee had provided their names during the proceedings under Section 132(5) and the CIT had acknowledged the assessee's confused state of mind at the time of the search. Therefore, the Tribunal confirmed the deletion of the addition related to the value of 63.81 carats of diamonds. Conclusion: The appeal was treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes, with the first issue remanded to the CIT(A) for reconsideration and the second issue decided in favor of the assessee.
|
