9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of reopening the assessment under Section 147. 2. Legitimacy of the capital gain on the sale of diamond jewelry. 3. Legitimacy of the capital loss on the sale of gold jewelry. 4. Alleged bogus capital gain on the sale and purchase of shares. 5. Addition of Rs. 12,47,500 as income from undisclosed sources. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Reopening the Assessment under Section 147: The assessment was reopened based on the belief that the income of the assessee had escaped assessment. The AO's belief was based on information from the Gem & Jewellery Export Promotion Council of India, suggesting that the cost of acquisition of diamond jewelry in 1982-83 was lower than declared by the assessee. The CIT(A) upheld the validity of the reopening, referencing Supreme Court decisions in Phool Chand Bajrang Lal vs. ITO and Ess Kay Engineering Co. (P) Ltd. vs. CIT, which state that the AO should have a bona fide belief that income had escaped assessment. The Tribunal concurred, noting that the return had only been processed under Section 143(1) without scrutiny and that the AO had not expressed any opinion earlier as no regular assessment had been made. 2. Legitimacy of the Capital Gain on the Sale of Diamond Jewelry: The AO questioned the cost of acquisition of diamond jewelry declared by the assessee, estimating it at Rs. 24,12,380 instead of Rs. 27,00,000. Consequently, the AO recalculated the long-term capital gain at Rs. 10,14,333 against Rs. 1,40,917 disclosed by the assessee. The CIT(A) accepted the cost of diamond jewelry at Rs. 27,00,000, referencing the VDIS disclosure, affidavit, valuation report by an approved valuer, and principles of valuation of the Gem & Jewellery Export Promotion Council. The Tribunal did not address this issue further as the Revenue did not raise a specific ground of appeal on this point. 3. Legitimacy of the Capital Loss on the Sale of Gold Jewelry: The assessee declared a long-term capital loss of Rs. 12,99,983 on the sale of gold jewelry, which the AO did not disturb. This loss was set off against the recalculated long-term capital gain on diamond jewelry, resulting in a net long-term capital loss of Rs. 2,85,620 to be carried forward. The CIT(A) upheld the assessee's declared capital loss, and the Tribunal did not find a specific ground of appeal from the Revenue on this point. 4. Alleged Bogus Capital Gain on the Sale and Purchase of Shares: The AO added Rs. 12,47,500 as income from undisclosed sources, alleging that the sale of shares was bogus. The assessee had purchased shares of M/s Ankur International Ltd. and sold them at significantly higher prices. The AO found discrepancies, including the lack of trading of these shares on the Ludhiana Stock Exchange after 17th July 1997 and the shares still being registered in the assessee's name. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, stating that the assessee had discharged the onus of proving the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the transactions. However, the Tribunal reversed this decision, referencing the Tribunal's decision in a similar case involving a family member, Som Nath Maini, where the addition was restored. The Tribunal found that the AO's findings, including the structured transactions at Jaipur Stock Exchange and the non-transfer of shares, justified treating the sale as bogus. 5. Addition of Rs. 12,47,500 as Income from Undisclosed Sources: The AO's addition of Rs. 12,47,500 was based on the finding that the sale of shares was not genuine. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, but the Tribunal reversed this decision, upholding the AO's findings. The Tribunal noted that the AO had conducted thorough enquiries, including examining the bank account of the broker, M/s S.K. Sharma & Co., and found cash deposits preceding the issue of cheques to the assessee. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee had not discharged the onus of proving the genuineness of the transactions, and the AO's action was justified. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the validity of the reopening of the assessment under Section 147 and reversed the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition of Rs. 12,47,500, concluding that the sale of shares was not genuine. The appeal of the Revenue was allowed.
|
