9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 63X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e details, which was not the factual scenario, since the Assessing Officer had verified the details of the quantities returned and sold, which has not been disputed and obviously for the reason sale having been correlated on the assaying of the jewellery. In fact, it has been brought to the notice of the tribunal that jewellery declared was of lower purity and as such on conversion i.e., upon assaying purity had reduced proportionately, which has been erroneously ignored by the tribunal. Tribunal erred in not considering the fact that under similar circumstances in the following cases rendered in respect of the assessees who were similarly placed, had been accepted and the appeals filed by the respective assessees had been allowed. Tribunal committed a serious error in arriving at a conclusion that items sold by the respective appellants were different from the jewellery declared under the VDIS and as such the substantial questions of law deserves to be answered in favour of the assessees and against the Revenue. - I.T.A.No.100025/2018 C/W I.T.A.Nos.100024/2018, 100062/2018, 100063/2018 - - - Dated:- 9-10-2019 - MR. ARAVIND KUMAR AND MR. P.G.M. PATIL JJ. APPELLANT (B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeals) preferred further an appeal before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short ITAT/Tribunal ), which came to be dismissed by order dated 22.12.2017. Hence, these second appeals. 5. It is the contention of Sri.A.Shankar, learned counsel appearing for appellants that authorities below as well as tribunal committed a serious error in arriving at a conclusion that there was difference between the quantity of declared items and sold items without considering the fact that appellants had declared gold jewellery, silver and diamonds embedded in the precious metals under the VDIS Scheme-1997, which has been accepted by the Revenue upon payment of requisite taxes and as such, doubting the transaction afresh would not arise. He would also contend that the appellants had filed the copies of VDIS declaration and valuation report which described each item of jewellery along with the gross and net weight, purity of the jewellery and the caratage of the diamonds held by the appellants on the date of declaration as also the invoice for conversion of gold and silver jewellery to bullion form, which established the gross weight of the jewellery converted and net weight received by the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the revenue. If the assessee xxxx and pass the following: Thus, the exercise which was to be undertaken by the assessing officer was to ascertain whether the gold and jewellery sold by the assessees-appellants were the same as declared under the VDIS or not? By undertaking such an exercise it has been held by the Assessing Officer that what has been sold by the assessee is gold bullion and silver bullion and what has been declared in the VDIS is ornaments and as such assessees had not proved that what is sold under the sale transaction is same as the items declared under the application filed under VDIS. Insofar as, diamonds are concerned it has been held that on account of VDIS declaration not containing the details as to whether they were cut and polished diamonds and the sale bill which has been relied upon by the assessees disclosing they are cut and polished, it cannot be accepted. 10. There is no dispute to the fact about the appellants having declared gold jewellery, silver and diamonds which were embedded in the said jewellery under the VDIS 1997 which declaration has been accepted upon the appellants paying requisite taxes. It is the specific case of assessees t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g purity had reduced proportionately, which has been erroneously ignored by the tribunal. 12. In fact, the tribunal erred in not considering the fact that under similar circumstances in the following cases rendered in respect of the assessees who were similarly placed, had been accepted and the appeals filed by the respective assessees had been allowed. The details of the orders so passed by the tribunal are as under: Appeal Number Appellant Resp Order Dt ITA.77/Bang/2016 Sri Ghisulal Chopra ITO 30/06/16 ITA.80/Bang/2016 Smt Vimaladevi Doshi ITO 30/06/16 ITA.81/Bang/2016 Sri Shyam B Habib ITO 30/06/16 ITA.84/Bang/2016 Smt.Sabita Kallianpurkar ITO 30/06/16 ITA.107/Bang/2016 Kailash O Mahajan ITO 30/06/16 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
