9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 305X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tters which have been referred to herein above. In fact, tribunal in its various decisions rendered in respect of the assessees who are similarly placed, who also contended that gold declared by them under VDIS had been smelted through Balaji Refinery and sold thereafter to Mahalakshmi Jewellers had been accepted. Tribunal committed a serious error in not accepting the sale invoices Annexures- F and J submitted by the assessee on the ground that it is not the same items which had been shown and declared by them in the VDIS declaration and the valuation report annexed to such declaration. It further committed a serious error in not applying the ratio of its earlier decision to the facts on hand which were not only similar but also identical as it relates to the same Refinery who had smelted the gold declared by the assessee under VDIS-1997. Hence, we answer the substantial questions of law in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. - I.T.A.Nos.100005-100006/2018 - - - Dated:- 30-7-2019 - MR. ARAVIND KUMAR AND MR. P.G.M. PATIL JJ. APPELLANTS (BY SRI. A. SHANKAR SR. COUNSEL AND SRI. MANOJ D PUKALE) RESPONDENT (BY SRI. Y.V. RAVIRAJ, ADVOCATE) JUDGMENT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A), also did not yield any result and both the appeals came to be dismissed. Hence, this appeal by the assessees. 4. We have heard the arguments of Sri. A. Shankar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri.Manoj D. Pukale for appellants and Sri. Y.V. Raviraj, learned panel counsel appearing for respondent. We have perused the orders under challenge. 5. Findings of the authorities to reject the claim of appellants was on the ground that tenants - Balaji Refinery, Mahalakshmi Jewellers and Sheetal Exports, who had smelted the gold belonging to appellants were not occupying the premises reflected in the invoices. It was also held that assessees had not examined any person from the above said jewellery firms to establish gold declared under VDIS had been smelted by him. It was also held that description of gold purity, diamond carat, colour and cut are not mentioned in the sale invoices. It is also held that affidavit of Chaganlal Proprietor of M/s.Balaji Refinery had no evidentiary value. In this background, substantial questions of law requires to be adjudicated and answered. FINDINGS ON SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW 1 2: 6. The undisputed facts are that appellants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M/s. Balaji Refinery, Hubli and sold the same to Shree Mahalakshmi Jewellers (Gold) and loose diamonds in favour of Sheetal Exports. Assessing officer in the said cases had obtained a letter from the Gold and Silver Refinery Welfare Association, Hubli, wherein it was indicated that no such refinery existed. This finding was not accepted by the tribunal and at paragraph 15 the tribunal, it came to be recorded in ITA No.102/BANG/2016 and ITA No.103/BANG/2016 by its order dated 30.06.2016 to the following effect: 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 support of the VDIS declarations. Gross weight also tallies. Purchase invoice issued by the concern which purchased the gold and diamonds also shows that same weight of bullion as mentioned in the bill of M/s. Balaji. Refinery and same caretage of diamonds marked in the valuation report. Case of the Revenue is that M/s. Balaji Refinery, which melted the ornaments and the concern to which the gold/bullion were sold were not found in Keshvapur, Hubli. Assessees were repeatedly questioned about this during the course of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... their size, cut and colour of the sold diamonds was not verifiable. However, assessee had filed Misc.Petition No.91(B)/2016 which came to be allowed after having brought to the notice of the tribunal that claim of the assessee was similarly placed to that of assessee in the matter of SMT.MANJULADEVI. Thus, it is evident from the above orders, even in respect of other assessees who had filed declaration under Section 65(1) of VDIS 1997 during same period had enclosed the valuation reports as similar and identical to the valuation report filed by the present assessee and subsequently, they have also got the gold so declared smelted through Balaji Refinery and sold the bullion to M/s.Mahalakshmi Jewellers and diamonds to M/s.Sheetal Exports. Even in said case, assessee had got the gold smelted through Mahalakshmi Jewellers and assessing officer therein had questioned the source of amount deposited in Bank account of assessee, by rejecting the contention of the assessee that same is out of sale proceeds of jewellery and had treated the same as unexplained credit/investment, which is also the factual scenario in the instant case or in other words, the same exercise has been undertaken ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A.133/Bang/2016 Kanchanbai M Jain ITO 30/06/16 ITA.139/Bang/2016 Ramakant R Sharma ITO 30/06/16 ITA.283/Bang/2016 Shri S Linganna DCIT 30/06/16 ITA.431/Bang/2016 M/s. Rittal India Pvt. Ltd DCIT 30/06/16 ITA.137/Bang/2016 Manjumala R Sharma ITO 04/07/16 ITA.82/Bang/2016 Sri Pukhraj D Jain, Hubli ITO 04/07/16 ITA.42/Bang/2016 Jayantilal P Jain ITO 31/08/16 9. In the light of above stated facts, we are of the considered view that tribunal committed a serious error in not accepting the sale invoices Annexures- F and J submitted by the assessee on the ground that it is not the same items which had been shown and declared by them in the VDIS declaration and the valuation report annexed to such declaration. It further comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
