9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 1368X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... placed by the AO on a letter issued by Gold and Silver Refinery Welfare Association, Hubli, wherein it was mentioned that no refinery called M/s. Balaji Refinery, did any refinery work in Hubli since 15 years. It is not necessary that every refinery should be a member of an association. A glance at the bill issued by M/s. Balaji Refinery does show that it was holding a licence. A Look at the purchase bill issued by the concerns show that they were having KST and CST registration numbers. In the case of M/s. Hunney Exports even their PA Number was there. These evidence do tilt the case in favour of the assessees. Assessees had done whatever possible, within their means to show that the gold and 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. We are of the opinion that assessee 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 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12,98,680 2. Smt. Leeladevi R. Jain 16,480 11,50,000 11,66,480 3. Smt. Sushiladevi G. Jain 9,05,365 11,00,000 20,05,365 4. Smt. Kamaladevi J. Jain 8,38,770 12,25,000 20,63,770 04. All these assessee had taken advantage of VDIS, 1997 (VDIS in short). Under this scheme assessees had declared jewellery valued as under: Table No.3 Sl. No Name of the assessee Gold Jewellery Rs. Diamonds Rs. 1. Smt. Majuladevi H. Jain 5,36,873 3,25,000 2. Smt. Leeladevi R. Jain 5,44,840 3,10,000 3. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2152 to 2154 and 2158/2008, dt.23.09.2008, held as under : 09. But for the change in figures, the judgments carried the same direction. Pursuant to the above directions of the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court, cases were again considered by the AO. Notices were issued to the assessees. Claim of the assessees were that the gold ornaments which were given for melting with M/s. Balaji Refinery, Hubli, was the very same which was shown by them in VDIS declarations. Assessees again relied on the bills of the concerns to which sale of gold and silver were made. AO after considering the submissions of the assessee and the bills issued by M/s. Balaji Refinery, Hubli, found that weight of the jewellery declared by the assessees, in the valuation report supporting the VDIS declarations were different from the weight of gold / bullion that were sold. As per the AO assessees could not prove that what was sold by them were the same gold jewellery which were declared in the VDIS declarations. Further as per the AO neither of the concern to whom assessee claimed sales viz., M/s. Shri. Mahalaxmi Jewellers in the case of gold and M/s. Hunney Exports / M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s per the Ld. AR, M/s. Balaji Refinery had clearly given the details of the jewellery items which were given to them for melting. Labour charges were also paid by the assessees. Ld. AR submitted that copies of bills issued by M/s. Balaji Refinery clearly proved conversion of the ornaments into bullion. As per the Ld. AR, assessees concerned had converted the gold and diamond jewellery to bullion and separated out the precious stones, since if sold directly as jewellery, the items would have fetched much lesser amount. As per the Ld. AR if on an enquiry conducted after twelve years by the AO, M/s. Balaji Refinery was found not available at the premises mentioned, assessees could not be blamed. Thus according to him, assessees had done what all was necessary and possible to prove that the gold and diamond jewellery which were converted through M/s. Balaji Refinery, were the same which were sold to one or other concerns who were doing gold / bullion business. Ld. AR has also placed before us copies of assessment orders passed by the AO in the case of one Shri. Shailesh V. Patel and Shri. Vithalbhai N. Patel, for the assessment year 1998-99, where on similar set of facts the credits we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n, Hubli, wherein it was mentioned that no refinery called M/s. Balaji Refinery, did any refinery work in Hubli since 15 years. However, it is not necessary that every refinery should be a member of an association. A glance at the bill issued by M/s. Balaji Refinery does show that it was holding a licence. A Look at the purchase bill issued by the concerns show that they were having KST and CST registration numbers. In the case of M/s. Hunney Exports even their PA Number was there. In my opinion, these evidence do tilt the case in favour of the assessees. Assessees had done whatever possible, within their means to show that the gold and 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 disl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
