Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (8) TMI 702 - AT - Income TaxAdoption of value of gold jewellery - Revenue raised the ground with regard to non-adoption of value of 30,000 gms. of gold at the average rate as on 01/04/2008 and 31/03/2009 (i.e. ₹ 10892/- per 10 gms) as per the provision of sec. 69A - Held that:- It is a settled proposition that whenever gold articles are recovered from the assessee, unless there is cogent evidence adduced by the assessee regarding the date on which it was acquired, it should be presumed that the articles belonged to the assessee and were owned by him and it is also to be presumed that the articles were acquired in the year in question and it represented the concealed income of the assessee. The assessee’s Counsel submitted that the gold jewellery was accumulated year after year for the last 15 years, therefore the average rate of ₹ 520 per gram is to be considered. Without prejudice to this argument, the assessee took the plea that the valuation of 26 kg. at ₹ 1,93,44,000/- has been accepted by the Department for the assessment year 2007-08 which was considered as protective assessment and in the substantive assessment for the assessment year 2009-10, the same value is to be adopted. U/s. 69A gold jewellery found during the course of survey is to be valued at the rate prevalent at the time of survey and not at the rate stated by the assessee. In this case, it is to be deemed that the gold jewellery was acquired in the year in question when the survey took place. More so, this view taken by the Assessing officer finds support in the case of CIT vs. K.I. Pavunny (1998 (2) TMI 105 - KERALA High Court) wherein the same ratio was laid down by the Court. In view of this, the jewellery found during the course of survey is to be valued at the rate as applicable in the assessment year under consideration. CIT(A) is not justified in valuing the gold jewellery at the rate prevalent in the assessment year 2007-08. Accordingly, we reverse the order of the CIT(A) and restore that of the Assessing officer. - Decided in favour of revenue. Addition of value of 2 kg. gold - CIT(A) deleted addition on the reason that the assessee himself has offered it for taxation in his return of income at ₹ 19,40,000/- - Held that:- We are of the opinion that the entire value of 30 kg. of gold jewellery is to be taxed in this assessment year at the prevalent rate at the time of survey and thereafter, the value of gold jewellery already offered by the assessee for taxation in his return of income, is to be reduced from the total value and only net balance is to be considered for addition. Admittedly, in this case, the Assessing officer worked out the total value of 30 kg. at ₹ 3,26,76,000/- and he has made deduction towards the value of 2 kg of gold at ₹ 19,40,000/- when it was already offered for taxation by the assessee himself in his return of income filed in this assessment year. Thus, the Assessing officer considered the difference of ₹ 3,07,36,000/-. Being so, in our opinion, the CIT(A) is not justified in making further deduction of ₹ 19,40,000/- on this count. Accordingly, we are inclined to reverse the order of the CIT(A) and restore that of the Assessing officer on this issue also. Accordingly. the Revenue appeal is allowed on this issue also.- Decided in favour of revenue.
|