9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (2) TMI 134X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a confirmed purchase of corresponding diamonds. As regards the purchase price of diamonds made by the assessee from M/s White Diamonds Industries Ltd., it is observed that the same has been shown by the assessee himself at Rs.3,36,619/- and there is nothing brought on record by the assessee to show that it was actually more. Decided against assesee. - I.T.A. No. 2792/Mum/2008. - - - Dated:- 4-1-2012 - Shri P.M.Jagtap, Shri Vijay Pal Rao, JJ. Appellant by : Shri Ashok J. Patil. Respondent by : Shri Parthsarathi Naik. O R D E R. Per P.M. Jagtap, A.M. : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of learned CIT(Appeals)-XXXII, Mumbai dated 31-01-2008 and the solitary issue arising out of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e that the diamonds were delivered to Shri H.K. Jain, Prop. Of M/s Alpha Exports on approval basis and as per the normal practice followed in the business of diamond trade, the sale was not accounted for in the books of account for want of confirmation from the said party. It was submitted that even the purchase of corresponding diamond was made from M/s White Diamond Industries Ltd. on approval basis and the same were not accounted for in the books of account as per the prevailing practice followed in the diamond trade. It was submitted that M/s Alpha Exports, however, neither approved the diamonds nor returned the same inspite of repeated reminders and, therefore, efforts were made to encash the cheque of Rs.15 lakhs received from M/s Alp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rit in these submissions made on behalf of the assessee and rejected the same for the following reasons given in para No. 6 of his impugned order : (a) The appellant himself in his original petition in Girgaon Court, Mumbai, Case No. 250/S/2001 u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against M/s Alpha Exports, Proprietary concern of Shri H.K. Jain in Para 2 Page 2 of the said Petition has stated as under: I say that the said firm is regular dealing in diamond. I say that in the regular course of our business, vide Bill No. L/JUNE/1/2000-2001, dated 10/06/2000, the said Firm had sold and delivered Cut and Polished Diamonds worth Rs.15,16,616/- to the Accused. I shall rely upon the said bill, statement of account and other documents ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the assessee had made a payment of Rs.3,36,819/- against corresponding purchase of diamond in F.Y. 2002-03 to M/s White Diamond Industries Ltd. Accordingly the net profit from trading of diamonds was worked out by the learned CIT(Appeals) at Rs.11,79,797/- (i.e. Rs.15,16,616 - Rs.3,36,819) and addition made by the AO on account of unaccounted sale of diamond was sustained by the learned CIT(Appeals) to that extent. Still aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(Appeals), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material on record. The learned counsel for the assessee has mainly reiterated before us the submissions made before the authorities below. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Act wherein it was clearly stated by the assessee that the sum of Rs.15 lakhs was received by cheque against sale of diamond made to M/s Alpha Exports in the regular course of business. It was thus not a case of supply of diamonds by the assessee to M/s Alpha Exports on approval basis but it was a case of confirmed sale of diamonds made under a regular bill issued by the assessee on 10-06-2000 and the profit from the said sale, in our opinion, was chargeable to tax in the year under consideration as rightly held by the authorities below. 6. The learned counsel for the assessee has raised before us an alternative contention that the entire sale proceeds of diamonds having not been received by the assessee from M/s Alpha Exports, the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the alleged unaccounted sale. He has contended that the purchases made from M/s Whitel Diamond Industries Ltd. on approval basis were confirmed only in the previous year relevant to assessment year 2003-04 and the additional income as a result of settlement with the said party at lower price having been accrued to the assessee in that year could be taxed in assessment year 2003-04 and not in the year under consideration. We are unable to accept this alternative contention of the learned counsel for the assessee. Having held that a confirmed sale of diamonds was made by the assessee to M/s Alpha Exports in the year under consideration by a bill dated 10-06-2000, we cannot accept the contention of the assessee that there was no confirmed p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
