9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 463X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ended on 31-03-2003, 31-03-2004, 31-03-2005 and closing stock shown by assessee includes the stock seized. We further find that the valuation shown by assessee in accounts in respect of seized diamonds is ₹ 67,66,360/- which is almost at par with the valuation made by Department at ₹ 67,93,643/-. The opening stock and closing stock for the year 2003-04 was the same as there was no purchase and sale during the year at Mumbai office. There was only purchase and sale at Surat office. In view of these facts and circumstances, we are of the view that there are ample evidences which prove that the diamond seized are explained and purchased from disclosed sources as these are fully disclosed in the books of accounts. Accordingly, we a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are that the total income of the appellant was determined at ₹ 71,21,483/- after making an addition of ₹ 67,93,643/- being value of 485.26 carats of diamonds found and seized during the course of search on the mini-bus belonging to M/s. Patel Ambalal Hargovandas Co., Angadia's in Mumbai. The CIT (Appeal) confirmed the addition in appeal. Aggrieved with the appellant filed appeal to the Hon'ble ITAT. Since the penalty proceedings initiated by the A.O. were getting barred by limitation, the A.O. after considering the submissions made during assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings, levied penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. The quantum appeal has since been decided by the Hon'ble Tribunal and the additions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ash before authorized officer on 29-07-2004 and in his statement recorded, he confirmed the movement of the goods from Mumbai to Surat by assessee. According to assessee Mr. Dakshesh is the employee at Mumbai office was being paid regular salary and power of attorney was issued in his favour and also produced proof of identity of Mr. Dakshesh and himself together with PAN card of Priyanka Gems and power of attorney executed by firm in favour of Mr. Dakshesh much before on 08-09-2001. We further find that Mr. Dakshesh was paid regular salary by assessee-firm and he was authorized for all activities of the firm and the identity card of Bharat Diamond Bourse as representative of assessee-firm was issued 03-03-2000 much before the search. Accor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tional and Harsona Diamond are assessed to tax having GST and CST numbers and assessee's average sale price is ₹ 14,527/- per carat which shows that assessee exported small diamonds. In the case of big diamonds having weight exceeding 50 cents, the sales value would have been at least ₹ 50,000/- per carat. According to assessee, parts of the diamonds were sent for assortment, as assessee was having order of 485.26 carats only and this was clarified by Assessee's partner in reply to question No.16 where the partner stated that balance goods were lying at Mumbai office as it was not possible to sell it as these goods were being sent from Mumbai office to Surat office for assortment as the partner Shri Prakashbhai was at Su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amonds is ₹ 67,66,360/- which is almost at par with the valuation made by Department at ₹ 67,93,643/-. The opening stock and closing stock for the year 2003-04 was the same as there was no purchase and sale during the year at Mumbai office. There was only purchase and sale at Surat office. In view of these facts and circumstances, we are of the view that there are ample evidences which prove that the diamond seized are explained and purchased from disclosed sources as these are fully disclosed in the books of accounts. Accordingly, we accept the explanation of the assessee and the orders of the lower authorities on this issue are reversed. This issue of assessee's appeal is allowed on merits. 4. Further, we have also bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... perverse. At best, the view taken by the Assessing Officer, as confirmed by the CIT(A) could also be one of the plausible views. Nevertheless, when the Tribunal, on the basis of evidence on record, has come to a certain factual findings, simply because the Tribunal's view was different from the one held by the Assessing Officer, in our view, would not permit us to interfere with the order under challenge. No substantial question of law arises. Tax Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. 6. In view of the above, we find no infirmity in the deletion of penalty by learned CIT(A) and the same is hereby confirmed. We find no force in this ground of the Revenue. Hence hereby dismissed. 7. In the result, Revenue's Appeal is dismissed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
