9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 47X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appellate Authority on an erroneous appreciation of the evidence in the case and it was therefore that the Tribunal re appreciated the entire evidence before it and set aside the First Appellate Authority's order and restored the assessment order. A reading of the Tribunal's order shows that the Tribunal has discussed each and every piece of evidence before it and came to the factual conclusion that the assessee has failed to discharge his burden under section 69A of the Income Tax Act read with section 110 of the Evidence Act. These conclusions, as rightly contended by the learned senior counsel for the revenue, are completely factual and therefore, it does not give rise to any question of law for the consideration of this Court in an appeal filed under Section 260A - Decided against assessee. - ITA No.48 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 23-8-2017 - Mr. Antony Dominic And Dama Seshadri Naidu, JJ. For The APPELLANT : SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) And SRI.PRASANTH M.P For The RESPONDENT : SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX JUDGMENT Antony Dominic, J. In this appeal filed by the assessee the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench in ITA No.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of the parties or discussed during the hearing before the Tribunal and thereby taking a decision without affording the opportunity of being heard on the above? g) Whether the Tribunal was right in law and facts of the case in holding that the presumption u/s 132 (4A) of the Income Tax Act is not applicable in the present case. 2. On 24.7.2006, the Sub Inspector of Police, Hill Palace, Thripunithura apprehended the assessee and recovered gold ornaments weighing 7191.700 gms. The recovery was reported to the Income Tax Department which requisitioned the gold under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act. On that basis assessment proceedings were initiated against the assessee. By Annexure-A assessment order, ₹ 63,64,123/- being the value of the gold recovered was added to the income of the assessee under Section 69A of the Act. The assessment order was set aside by the First Appellate Authority, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The revenue carried the matter in appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the appeal by Annexure-c order and restored Annexure-A assessment order. It is in this background the assessee has filed this revision. 3. We heard the counsel f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the judgment of the Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Salem v K.Chinnathamban (292 ITR 682). According to him, a reading of the order impugned would show that the findings therein are rendered entirely on appreciation of the evidence available and it being completely factual, no question of law arises for the consideration of this Court in this appeal. 6. We have considered the submissions made. 7. Section 69A of the Act provides that where in any financial year, the assessee is found to be the owner of any jewellery and such jewellery is not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of acquisition of the jewellery or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the assessing officer, satisfactory, the money and the value of the jewellery may be deemed to be the income of the assessee for such financial year. Reading of this provision shows that the burden is cast entirely upon the assessee to explain about the nature and source of acquisition of the jewellery and if the assessing officer forms an opinion that the explanation offered is not sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e transfer documents subsequently produced, the quantity of gold ornaments transferred to Kochi was 7432.880 gms. The quantity of gold ornaments seized was only 7191.700 gms. The assessee or the officials of M/s. Prakash Gold Palace (P) Ltd. could not explain the whereabouts or absence of the balance quantity of 241.180 gms. of gold. 9. Thereafter the claims of the assessee with respect to his being employed and the ownership of gold recovered from him were held to be not acceptable in paragraph-9 of the assessment order which also reads thus: During the course of Survey at the Chennai office of M/s Prakash Gold Palace (P) Ltd., there were no books of accounts or other documents to show any jewellery having been sent to Kochi Branch or given to Karun Dutt Singh as samples to procure orders. The Director of the company Shri.Abhilas Kumar Jain stated in his sworn affidavit that Shri.Karun Dutt Singh alias Rinku Singh was not given any ornaments from Chennai and there was no record to show that he was given gold ornaments for sale or canvassing. The subsequent reversal of stand is only an afterthought. No books of account were found during the course of survey u/s 13 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
