9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 83X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epends upon quality of the Diamonds being its cut and colour apart from its size. Regarding this sale of Diamonds i.e. 18.55 carat, do not know the size also because in the confirmation available on page-4 of the paper book, number of pieces of Diamonds is not mentioned and therefore, its size is not known. The cut and colour of diamonds are also not known because the same is not mentioned in the purchase confirmation or in the VDIS declaration. Hence it is seen that the assessee has failed to establish that the diamonds sold in the present year and declared under VDIS are same. Thus the assessee has failed to establish this fact that he Diamonds sold in the present year are the same Diamonds which declared by the assessee in VDIS dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... finding that the declaration stood unproved and hence the diamonds sold were not out of the declaration made. 6 The learned CIT(A) was not justified on facts in not considering the diamonds on hand with the appellant as per the declaration, to be the same diamonds sold on the facts and circumstances of the case. 7.Without prejudice to the right to seek waiver with the Hon'ble Chief Commissioner of Income Tax/Director General of Income Tax, the Appellant denies itself liable to be charged to interest under section 234B of the Act which under the facts and circumstances of the case deserves to be cancelled. The calculation of interest under section 234B is not in accordance with law as the rate, amount and method for calculat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not justified and the same should be deleted. He also submitted copy of two Tribunal orders rendered in the case of Shri Shjyam B Habib Vs ITO in ITA No.819B)/2016 dated 30-06-2016 and in the case of Smt Umabai M Kothari Vs ITO in ITA No.86,106 268(B)/2016 and placed reliance on the same. 4. The ld. DR of the revenue supported the orders of the authorities below. He also submitted that on page 9 of his order, a clear finding has been given by the ld. CIT(A) that what is sold under the sale transactions and claimed by the assessee and what is declared in the application filed under VDIS 1997 are different. She submitted that no interference is called for in the order of the ld. CIT (A). 5. At this juncture, a query was raised by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15.3 12 99,750 Total .. 2,40,000 7. As per the confirmation of the buyer M/s S. Babulal Co., Ahmedabad, he has purchased from the assessee cut and polished Diamonds of 18.55 carat for ₹ 5,00,050/-. The dispute is only about this amount of ₹ 500,050/- and hence other bills etc. are not relevant. It is seen that although, the carats quantity as per VDIS declaration and purchase confirmation is tallying but the carat quantity alone cannot determine that both the items are same or not because the price of Diamond mainly depends upon quality of the Diamonds being its cut and colour apart from it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the Diamond sold in the present case is the same Diamond which was declared by the assessee under VDIS declaration 1997 because the assessee could not show that the size, colour and cut of the Diamond sold in the present year and Diamond declared under the VDIS declaration are the same and without that, it cannot be accepted that the Diamond in question is the same on this basis alone the quantity in carat is tallying because, the price of the Diamond is mainly determined by the size, colour and cut of the Diamond. Hence, I hold that this Tribunal order is also not applicable in the present case. As per above discussion, I have found that none of the Tribunal orders cited above by the ld.AR of the assessee is rendering any help to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
