9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 317X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her Sri Saxena was produced nor any other documentary evidence was filed in support of the claim - Decided against assessee. Interest under Section 158BFA(1) and 220(2) - Held that:- Following Punjab Skin Co. vs. Union of India [2001 (2) TMI 18 - SUPREME Court] - No authority has power to reduce or waive the interest levied under Section 158BFA for the block assessment - The charging of interest is mandatory - Decided against assessee. - Income Tax Appeal No. - 168 of 2008, Income Tax Appeal No. - 169 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 6-12-2013 - Hon'ble Rajiv Sharma And Hon'ble Dr. Satish Chandra,JJ. For the Appellant : Rahul Shukla,S. K. Garg For Respondent :- D.D.Chopra,Mudit Agarwal,Sanjeev Shankhadhar ORDER (Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Satish Chandra, J.) Both the present appeals have been filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 against the consolidated judgment and order dated 14.08.2008, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow in ITA Nos.496/Alld/2000 214/Luc/2003, for the block period 10.04.1987 to 14.05.1997. On 17.10.2008, a Coordinate Bench of this Court has admitted the Appeal No. 168 of 2008 on the following substa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rm and at the residences of the partners. On the basis of seized material, block assessment for the period mentioned above, under Section 158BC, was passed where various additions were made. However, in first appeal, the CIT(A) has deleted certain additions. Being aggrieved, the assessee as well as the Department have filed cross appeals. The Tribunal vide its impugned order has partly allowed the appeal filed by the revenue and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. Not being satisfied, the assessee has filed both the present appeals. With this background, Sri Sanjeev Sankhadhar, learned counsel for the assessee submits that an addition of Rs.14,01,171/-, on account of unexplained/unaccounted jewellery, was wrongly made. The said jewellery was found during the search. During the search, total jewellery was found 10245.590 gms., out of which, 6486.630 gms., was matched in the books of account. Accordingly, balance jewellery i.e. 3758.860 gms., was seized. It is also a submission of the learned counsel that the jewellery belongs to six parties of Amritsar. So, the AO has made a reference to the Deputy Director of Income-Tax (Investigation), Amirtsar, who issued the summons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thur, learned standing counsel for the Department has justified the impugned order. At the strength of written submission, he submits that entire circumstances including creditworthiness of the six jewellers from Amritsar was considered in detail by the Tribunal. M/s. Dhuuna Jewellers Co. never filed return of income; and Sri Manjeet Singh explained that his father had very little income and was not liable to income tax. Sri Mohan Singh was suffering from kidney failure prior to his death and he was surviving on dialysis for the last 3-4 months and could not have travelled so long to deliver gold worth four lakhs to a party at Lucknow specially when the chances for recovery was blink. M/s. Surinder Singh Co. did not maintain books of accounts. He claimed that he visited Lucknow along with Sri Mohan Singh but it was not accepted by DD(I) because Sri Mohan Singh himself was on the deathbed and the transaction was not considered genuine. M/s. Sabberwal Brothers never found to have any transactions with the assessee in the past and on perusal of their balance sheet for the assessment year 1989-99; it appears that the assessee was not shown as a debtor to the party and therefore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds of lenders is not established. Though they might be small time karigars making jewellery but it is not believed or at least not established that they are in a position to lend so much of jewellery to the assessee on credit. It appears that new gold ornaments were given and old gold ornaments were taken by the Amritsar parties. So, there is nothing left for squaring up in future. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are not convinced that the Amritsar parties have given jewellery on credit basis to the assessee. No entry was found in the books of account mentioned by the assessee or party concerned. Nothing was reflected in the books of account of the six creditors. The Tribunal has observed in its impugned order that the Amritsar parties might have given new jewellery to the assessee in lieu of old jewellery. But it is not convinced that it was given on credit basis. The Tribunal rightly held that the credit of the gold ornaments by the six Amritsar parties is not established and, therefore, the explanation furnished by the assessee is not found acceptable. When it is so then, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
