Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2002 (3) TMI 233

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ive of assessee during arguments before me and so the same are dismissed accordingly. 4. Ground No. 3 pertains to not providing of adequate opportunity of hearing, but no arguments have been raised before me nor any arguments on this ground have been made in the written submission of assessee and so this ground is also treated as having not been pressed by the learned authorised representative of assessee and so the same is dismissed accordingly. 5. Ground No. 1(a) and (b) together constitute single issue disputing the addition of Rs. 1,63,700 as unexplained investment in gold. 6. The learned authorised representative of assessee has contended that the search took place in November 1988, and gold ornaments/jewellery belonging to asses .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... uired to be authenticated by the Central excise department in a advance. It has been contended that the assessee has issued receipts also in respect of all the 8 customers, in respect of whom the above addition has been made and the same has been duly entered in the stock register No. GS-11. It has been contended that the assessee furnished complete names and addresses and other details in respect of all the customers but the AO simply picked up 7 customers and examined them only but the same did accept these ornaments as belonging to them and the AO made no addition in respect of those 7 customers and also made no addition in respect of 5 other customers but made the addition in respect of the above-mentioned 8 customers without any proper .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Kanhaiyalal vs. Dy. CIT (2001) 73 TTJ (Jp) 585 and O.P. Jewellers vs. Asstt. CIT (2001) 71 TTJ (Del) 286. 7. As against the above, the learned Departmental Representative of Revenue has referred to p. 4 of the assessment order and contended that the assessee simply filed the copies of vouchers but did not file the confirmations of the above 8 customers. He has relied on the orders of the authorities below. 8. I have considered rival contentions, the relevant material on record, as also the cited decisions. From the perusal of record. It is found that the Gold Control Act was in operation at that time and the assessee was subject to Gold Control Act and Rules and was required to maintain stocks register in the Form No. GS-11 which neede .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates