TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1712X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt of purchase vouchers placed before the Sales Tax Authorities for ascertaining the fact that the impugned sale of jewellery was included in the purchases of Bishan Chand Mukesh Kumar declared before the Sales Tax Authorities. It is not the stand of the assessee before us that the factum of declaration of jewellery in VDIS, 1997 was not there before the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court before the matter has been restored back to the Tribunal for examination of actual sale transactions made by the assessee. Therefore, in view of express directions of Hon ble jurisdictional High Court to examine the actual sale transactions made by assessee, the decisions relied by the assessee render no support to the assessee in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case. AR was asked if he has any other evidence to establish that the impugned sale of jewellery is recorded in any of books of a/c of purchaser, but he showed his inability to presently adduce any such direct evidence before us. On the other hand, the ld. DR also could not prove by any positive evidence to establish that the impugned sale of jewellery was not recorded in and verifiable from the books of alleged p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee had discharged his burden that gold and diamond jewellery which were disclosed under VDIS 97 were sold to Bishan Chand Mukesh Kumar under proper sale voucher and sale proceeds were obtained through banking channel and were disclosed in books of accounts. Against this order, the Revenue preferred this appeal before the Tribunal, which came up for hearing before the ITAT, Delhi Benches, New Delhi and was decided by the Tribunal vide order dated 15.01.2009, whereby the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed after following the decision of Special Bench of ITAT in the case of Manoj Agarwal Others vs. DCIT, 113 ITD 377 (Delhi)(SB) as also the decision in the case of Tejinder Singh decided on 25.07.2008 in IT (SS)A No. 404/Del./2013. The Revenue carried the matter before the Hon ble Delhi High Court, where the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court vide a consolidated order dated 14.03.2012 has restored the matter back to the Tribunal with the following directions : Though we find that in almost all these cases there is a finding returned by the Commissioner of Income Tax that the transactions were genuine, since the revenue had challenged those findings, it was incumbent upon the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are identical to the facts involved in above decisions. He, therefore, urged for sustenance of the impugned order of ld. CIT(A). 5. We have heard and considered the submissions of both the parties and have gone through the entire material available on record. From the directions of Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court, as reproduced above, the Tribunal is required to examine as to whether the alleged transaction of sale of jewellery was genuine or not and to return its finding thereat. 6. A perusal of impugned order reveals that one of the assessee s stands has been that the firm M/s. Bishan Chand Mukesh Kumar is assessed to tax regularly and for the instant year the assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) accepting the turnover declared by it. However, the fact remains that assessment in the case of M/s. Bishan Chand Mukesh Kumar has also been subsequently made u/s. 158BC of the Act, which has been taken into account by the AO in the instant proceedings. The assessee has not whispered even a single word on these proceedings subsequently taken against the alleged purchaser u/s. 158BC of the Act. Hence, this stand of assessee does not render any support to the case of the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . This aspect of the case needs thorough examination at the stage of Assessing Officer from the records of Sales Tax Authorities and from books of purchaser before finally deciding the issue as per directions of the Hon ble High Court. 8. The contention of the assessee is also that the impugned jewellery was declared in VDIS, 1997. This fact is evident from the documentary evidence placed by the assessee and is well recorded in the orders of the authorities below. However, it is not the stand of the assessee before us that the factum of declaration of jewellery in VDIS, 1997 was not there before the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court before the matter has been restored back to the Tribunal for examination of actual sale transactions made by the assessee. Therefore, in view of express directions of Hon ble jurisdictional High Court to examine the actual sale transactions made by assessee, the decisions relied by the assessee render no support to the assessee in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case. 9. The other stand taken by the assessee has also been that some of the Assessing Officers at Amritsar, Delhi and Mathura have summoned Shri Bishan Chand and h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
