9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (10) TMI 74X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n has been given by her as to why she did not realize this fact for almost two years - appeal is accordingly dismissed - 945/2008 - - - Dated:- 4-10-2010 - CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL Mr. Kaanan Kapur, Advocate Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Advocate A.K. SIKRI, J. (ORAL) 1. A search and seizure operation was conducted at the business/residential premises of the appellant-assessee on 02.11.2004. During this operation, certain amount of jewellery was seized. The total jewellery seized was to the tune of Rs. 85,44,147/-. The appellant could give satisfactory explanation accounting for the jewellery to the extent of Rs. 77.38 lakhs. The dispute is in respect of balance jewellery of Rs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gorical case was that no such jewellery was given to the appellant. In fact, the appellant ultimately conceded to this during the assessment proceedings. 5. The explanation, however, which was later on given by the assessee was that the aforesaid jewellery was in fact supplied by M/s. Kesri Chand Co., another associate concern of K.K. Jewellers on approval basis. This is contained in her representation/communication dated 26th December, 2006 addressed to the assessing officer. 6. It so happened that during the assessment proceedings Mr. Kailash Chand Jain was again summoned by the assessing officer. On 11.12.2006, his statement was recorded. In this statement, he stated that he was partner both of K.K. Jewellers as well as M/s. Kesri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er was an afterthought and should be accepted or not. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has arrived at a finding to the effect that the aforesaid plea taken by the appellant, namely, that the jewellery was supplied by M/s. Kesri Chand Co. on approval, was an afterthought. In coming to this conclusion, the Tribunal has mentioned that initially Shri Kailash Chand Jain had denied having sent any jewellery on approval basis. This remark is based on the statement of Kailash Chand Jain, which was recorded on 2nd November, 2004. No doubt, the statement of Kailash Chand Jain was recorded on that date by visiting the premises of M/s. K.K. Jewellers, however, he is partner of M/s. Kesri Chand Co. as well. Even if he had stated that no jewellery w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. Kesri Chand Co. has been affixed on the sale voucher. 10. It will also be of interest to mention here that in her communication dated 26th December, 2006, the assessee has referred to Voucher No.30 dated 29.10.2004, vide which the jewellery was sent to her by M/s. Kesri Chand Co. If she was in the possession of the said voucher, we are unable to understand as to how she could give the name of the wrong jeweller on 2nd November, 2004 when she was questioned about the jeweller from whom she had taken the jewellery on approval basis. Even if it was an unintentional slip on her part, no explanation has been given by her as to why she did not realize this fact for almost two years. 11. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the opinion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
