9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 702X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the year in question and it represented the concealed income of the assessee. The assessee’s Counsel submitted that the gold jewellery was accumulated year after year for the last 15 years, therefore the average rate of ₹ 520 per gram is to be considered. Without prejudice to this argument, the assessee took the plea that the valuation of 26 kg. at ₹ 1,93,44,000/- has been accepted by the Department for the assessment year 2007-08 which was considered as protective assessment and in the substantive assessment for the assessment year 2009-10, the same value is to be adopted. U/s. 69A gold jewellery found during the course of survey is to be valued at the rate prevalent at the time of survey and not at the rate stated by the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... himself in his return of income filed in this assessment year. Thus, the Assessing officer considered the difference of ₹ 3,07,36,000/-. Being so, in our opinion, the CIT(A) is not justified in making further deduction of ₹ 19,40,000/- on this count. Accordingly, we are inclined to reverse the order of the CIT(A) and restore that of the Assessing officer on this issue also. Accordingly. the Revenue appeal is allowed on this issue also.- Decided in favour of revenue. - I.T.A. No. 783/Coch/2013 - - - Dated:- 6-2-2015 - Shri N.R.S.Ganesan, JM And Chandra Poojari, AM JJ. For the Appellant : Shri K.K. John, Sr. DR For the Respondent C.B.M. Warrier, CA ORDER Per Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member: Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lay in filing the Cross Objection by the assessee. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the record. We find that there exists reasonable cause for not filing the Cross Objection in time and the reasons advanced by the assessee for the delay in filing the Cross Objection are bona fide. Being so, we condone the delay in filing the Cross Objection by the assessee and admit the Cross Objection for adjudication. 6. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of gold jewellery and a survey under section 133A of the I.T. Act was conducted in the business premises of the assessee on 19-02-2009. During the course of survey, several documents and books of accounts were impounded and a letter was filed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs.1,93,44,000.00 2 kg. at ₹ 871/per gram ₹ 17,42,000.00 Total Rs.2,10,86,000.00 7. Thus, the CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer to the extent of (Rs.3,07,36,000 - 2,10,86,000) ₹ 96,50,000/-. Against this, the Revenue is in appeal before us. The assessee is in appeal before us for valuation of the gold jewellery at the higher rate instead of ₹ 520/per gm as this is the average rate for the last 15 years. 8. The Ld. DR submitted that there is no dispute about the quantum of gold jewellery found during the course of survey. The only dispute is regarding the valuation of the jewellery. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... protective assessment and in the substantive assessment for the assessment year 2009-10, the same value is to be adopted. However, the Ld. AR submitted that valuation of 26 kg. of gold at ₹ 10,892/- for 10 gms. is on the higher side. The Ld AR submitted that the Department cannot adopt different value for the same quantity of gold for the assessment year 2009-10 as compared to assessment year 2007-08. Thus, the Ld. AR took the plea that atleast the relief given by the CIT(A) may not be disturbed. 10. We have heard both the parties and perused the record. In this case, there is no dispute regarding quantity of 30 kg of gold found during the course of survey u/s. 133A of the Act. The dispute is only with regard to valuation of the g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und during the course of survey is to be valued at the rate as applicable in the assessment year under consideration. In our opinion, the CIT(A) is not justified in valuing the gold jewellery at the rate prevalent in the assessment year 2007-08. Accordingly, we reverse the order of the CIT(A) and restore that of the Assessing officer. Accordingly, the Revenue appeal is allowed on this issue. 11. With regard to deletion of addition of value of 2 kg. gold by the CIT(A) on the reason that the assessee himself has offered it for taxation in his return of income at ₹ 19,40,000/-, we are of the opinion that the entire value of 30 kg. of gold jewellery is to be taxed in this assessment year at the prevalent rate at the time of survey and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
