9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 1451X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gms and net weight is shown as 1249.500 gms which was converted into 1245.200 gms. The items shown in the conversion bill and VDIS declaration do match without any discrepancy. The bullion converted from the jewellery was sold by the assessee vide billdt.18.12.1997. Subsequently, the assessee has also sold the diamonds vide bill dt.16.2.2008. All these records were produced by the assessee before the Assessing Officer. It is manifest from the documents produced by the assessee that the gold jewellery items which were converted into bullion are identical as jewellery shown in the VDIS, 1997. The diamond items are also matching in the weight in carats a shown in the declaration of VDIS, 1997 and purchase bill. Therefore as far as the quant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respect of sale of gold and diamond as declared under VDIS, 1997. The Assessing Officer did not accept the explanation of source of deposit on the ground that what was declared in VDIS was jewellery items whereas the assessee is showing the sale proceeds from gold and diamond, not jewellery item. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer made an addition of ₹ 11,49,971 under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). On appeal, the CIT (Appeals) as well as this Tribunal confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. On further appeal, the Hon'ble High Court has remanded the matter to the record of the Assessing Officer vide decision dt.22.9.2008 in ITA No.211/04. The Hon'ble High Court has given the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in the VDIS and which was sold subsequently is same in carats. He has referred an identical case of one Poonamchand M Oswal wherein while passing the assessment order the Assessing Officer has accepted the sale proceeds of gold and diamond after conversion from jewellery as declared in the VDIS. The learned Authorised Representative has also relied upon the decision of the co-ordinate benches of the Tribunal dt.30.6.2016 in the case of Sri Seshmal J Jain in ITA Nos.109 110/Bang/2016 as well as the decision dt.30.6.2016 in the case of Sri Bijendra B Agrawal Another Vs. ITO in ITA Nos.102 103/Bang/2016. 4. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative has relied upon the orders of the authorities below and sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see that the gold jewellery items which were converted into bullion are identical as jewellery shown in the VDIS, 1997. The diamond items are also matching in the weight in carats a shown in the declaration of VDIS, 1997 and purchase bill. Therefore as far as the quantity and items which are declared in the VDIS, 1997 and which are subject matter of conversion and subsequent sale, there is no discrepancy. The co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Bijendra G Agrawal Another (supra) after considering the identical facts on record as held in para 15 as under : 15. What we note is that all the items which were appearing in bill issued by M/s. Balaji Refinery were also mentioned in the valuation report filed in suppor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... diamond sold by them were the same gold and diamond declared in VDIS, after conversion. Assessees had submitted copies of bills issued by M/s. Balaji Refinery which did show similar details of gold and diamond as returned in the VDIS. In such situation we are of the opinion that assessees had discharged their onus to show that the gold and diamond sold by them were the same which were declared by them in the VDIS declarations. Reasoning given by the AO that antique jewellery would not have been sold by the assessees is only a surmise and cannot dislodge the evidence filed by the assessee. Further there is nothing on record to show that the gold jewellery which were sold by the assessee were antique in nature. In such circumstances, I am of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
