9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Adequate opportunity of hearing not provided. 2. Dispute over addition of unexplained investment in gold. Analysis: 1. The issue of adequate opportunity of hearing was raised by the appellant, but no arguments were presented before the judge. As a result, the judge dismissed this ground as it was not pressed by the appellant's representative during the proceedings. 2. The main issue in this case revolved around the addition of Rs. 1,63,700 as unexplained investment in gold. The appellant contended that during a search in November 1988, various gold ornaments were found, including those belonging to customers. The appellant argued that the Assessing Officer (AO) accepted explanations for some customers but not for others, leading to the disputed addition. The appellant highlighted compliance with the Gold Control Act, maintaining stock registers, and issuing authenticated receipts for gold items received. The AO did not provide evidence to show that the gold ornaments in question did not belong to the customers. The appellant also submitted affidavits supporting the ownership of the gold by the customers. The judge considered the evidence, including the requirements of the Gold Control Act, and concluded that the addition of the gold claimed to belong to the customers as the appellant's unexplained investment was unjustified. Consequently, the judge ruled in favor of the appellant and deleted the addition. In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of adequate hearing opportunity and the disputed addition of unexplained investment in gold, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant on the latter issue based on the evidence presented regarding compliance with the Gold Control Act and ownership of the gold by customers.
|
