9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 817X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri C.S. Shah (HUF) has paid the amount on three different dates although the A.O. tried to find out the payment of ₹ 9,00,050/- as a total figure. Thus we do not find any merit in this grievance of the revenue and the same is dismissed. Capital gain - possession of the impugned gold ornaments sold during the year under consideration - Held that:- There is no dispute that the assessee was showing 1238.67 gms of gold from 1993-94. It is also not in dispute that in the year 2006-07, the assessee had purchased gold weighing 3417.64 gms. Merely, because the sale bills had two different addresses of the assessee, the same cannot be brushed aside lightly. More over as find from the findings of the First Appellate Authority, both the addresses are in fact of the same residential flat. Since the capital gains have arisen from the gold sold during the year the acquisition of which have been successfully explained by the assessee, we do not find any merit in the impugned grievance of the revenue and the same is dismissed. - ITA. No: 1525/AHD/2012 - - - Dated:- 5-1-2017 - SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Appellant : Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8377; 1,00,935/- as against determined by the AO of ₹ 3,20,114/-. 9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld.CIT (A)-IV, Surat ought to have upheld at least the order of the Assessing Officer. 10. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the CIT(A)-IV, Surat may be set-aside and that of the Assessing Officer's Order may be restored. 3. The ld. D.R. stated that he has nothing to add more to what has been stated in the statement of facts appended with Form 36. It is the say of the ld. D.R. that the statement of facts may be treated as revenue s written submission. The ld. counsel for the assessee relied upon the order of the First Appellate Authority. 4. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below. We have also carefully considered the statement of facts appended with Form 36. 5. Assessee is an individual who filed return of income on 24.03.2009 declaring total income of ₹ 2,77,893/- which included Short Term Capital Gain of ₹ 1,00,935/-. The return was selected for scrutiny assessment under CASS. The A.O. also received AIR information. Statutory notices were issued and s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11. During the course of the scrutiny assessment proceedings, the A.O. noticed that the assessee has shown balance of ₹ 47,04,000/- for the purchase of residential flat from Rajhans. On verifying the source of purchase, the A.O. noticed that Shri Ankit C. Shah has shown an amount of ₹ 3,00,000/- towards purchase of the said residential flat. The A.O. further noticed that an amount of ₹ 9,00,000/- was shown by Shri C.S. Shah (HUF) towards the purchase of the residential flat. After perusing the relevant ledger account of Ankit C. Shah and C.S. Shah (HUF), the A.O. was not convinced with their respective sources of investment. The A.O. accordingly treated ₹ 5,00,000/- and ₹ 9,00,000/- as unexplained investment of the assessee u/s. 69 of the Act. 12. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee strongly contended that due to some typographical error the amount and the date have been wrongly mentioned which was duly rectified in the due course of the time. It was explained that in the ledger account of Rajhans Construction Pvt. Ltd. to journal entries have been passed as on 31.03.2008 showing payment from Shri Ankit C. Shah ₹ 10,46,450/- and from C.S. Sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to explain the nature and source of the transaction. The assessee explained that the said amount has been received from her grandmother-in-law, who expired in 1989 inherited gold ornaments, which were sold for the consideration of ₹ 4,56,000/-. It was explained that inadvertently the accountant has shown the credit in the name of Rukhiben Shah instead of crediting the capital account of the assessee. The A.O. was of the opinion that the assessee has not furnished any document showing the transaction of inheritance. The A.O. was of the opinion that merely by filing the certificate of VDIS, 1975 would not explain the source of credit. The A.O. accordingly treated ₹ 4,56,000/- as unexplained cash credit and made the addition u/s. 68 of the Act. 19. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee reiterated what has been stated before the A.O. 20. After considering the facts and the submissions, the ld. CIT(A) was convinced by the inheritance of the gold. The ld. CIT(A) was also convinced that Smt. Rukhiben Shah had made a disclosure under VDIS, 1975. After considering the facts supported by the documentary evidences, the ld. CIT(A) directed the A.O. to delete the addition of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. 6 is dismissed. 28. Ground no. 7 relates to the deletion of the addition of ₹ 13,50,000/- made u/s. 69A of the Act and ground no. 8 relates to the determination of Short Term Capital Gains. Since both these grievances arise out of same set of facts and are inter related, they are taken for adjudication together. 29. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the A.O. found that the assessee has claimed sale of 4000 Gms of gold for ₹ 3,95,4500/- and offered Long Term and Short Term capital gain as under:- Particulars Qyt. (Gms) LTCG STCG Total Sales 4000.00 13,50,250 26,04,250 39,54,000 Less: Cost of acq. -F.Y. 93-94 1238.67 13,55,483 25,03,515 -F.Y. 2006-07(out of 3417.64) 2761.33 -- Total 4000.00 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee also filed copy of purchase bill of gold weighing 3417.64 gms purchase in F.Y. 2006-07. 33. After considering the facts and the submissions supported by relevant documentary evidences, the ld. CIT(A) was convinced that the assessee was in possession of the impugned gold ornaments sold during the year under consideration and directed the A.O. to accept the capital gains as returned by the assessee. 34. The statement of facts by the revenue relied upon the observations of the A.O. There is no dispute that the assessee was showing 1238.67 gms of gold from 1993-94. It is also not in dispute that in the year 2006-07, the assessee had purchased gold weighing 3417.64 gms. Merely, because the sale bills had two different addresses of the assessee, the same cannot be brushed aside lightly. More over as find from the findings of the First Appellate Authority, both the addresses are in fact of the same residential flat. Since the capital gains have arisen from the gold sold during the year the acquisition of which have been successfully explained by the assessee, we do not find any merit in the impugned grievance of the revenue and the same is dismissed. 35. In the result, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
