9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (9) TMI 30X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /silver ornaments returned by the karigars alongwith increase in weight due to mixing of alloy which is always upto 9% is returned and duly recorded in the books of account - Held that - additions were rightly deleted in each year in respect of increase in weight on account of impurity content in silver/gold ornaments and all the grounds of the department fail on this point - 131 OF 2008 - - - Dated:- 16-9-2009 - Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J. and Hon'ble Vedpal, J. JUDGMENT Heard Sri D.D. Chopra, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. No one appears on behalf of the assessee. The following substantial question of law is claimed to be the question: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances, the I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al for the earlier years, which have been followed in this year, has been accepted by the Revenue and no appeal has been filed. The reasons given by the Tribunal for the assessment year 1996-97 for deleting the addition are as follows: "We have considered the rival submissions and perused the record carefully. 21. The main point common in all the grounds relates to increase in weight of gold ornaments and silver ornaments. It is to be noted that the Assessing Officer has made addition in all the assessment years merely on the basis that percentage of alloy being mixed in the pure gold of 24 caret by assessee is shown at 8 to 9% while in general practice, it is upto 20% and the remaining portion of percentage is being retained by the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... karigars has been produced and he also confirmed on oath that whatever increase in weight more than 8 to 9% occurs, it goes to karigars and they stand compensated for the wastage of gold/silver which occurs in the manufacturing process of gold/silver ornaments. In view of these, the learned CIT (A) while deciding this issue has dealt at length and we have already reproduced the relevant para of the order of the learned CIT(A) for assessment year 1997-98 and the learned D.R. was not able to point out as to which portion of the order of the learned CIT(A) is not justified. If the contention of the assessee is being corroborated by the karigar and one of them was picked up by the Assessing Officer and examined on oath and he also corroborates ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
