TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 210X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... brought to tax as unexplained income, such income not having been claimed as expenditure in the computation of income. The objection of the Revenue is that the valuation of the gold per gram is not ₹ 500 but more as revealed by other disallowances made in the order of assessment and if the higher rate was taken into consideration, one could assume that certain expenditure has been incurred and claimed. We are not persuaded to accept this submission in so far as there is no necessity to consider any other valuation except that relating to the subject disallowance, being ₹ 500 per gram adopted by the Assessing officer after due consideration and application of mind. We are thus of the view that the provisions of 40A(3) are wholly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dicating unaccounted purchase of gold jewels to the extent of 40118.179 grams. The Appellant agreed to offer to tax the value of the unaccounted purchases/investment as representing his unexplained income. To arrive at the quantum thereof, the Appellant suggested that the peak of the purchases of gold jewellery be adopted at a rate of ₹ 478 per gram. The Appellant thus offered to tax an amount of ₹ 14,34,300/- as unexplained investment representing the purchase of gold jewels of 3000 gms, as reflected in loose sheet No.30 which indicated a purchase of 2980.390 gms, at the rate of ₹ 478/- per gram. The Assessing Authority accepted the same substantially, only enhancing the rate per gram to ₹ 500/- as against ₹ 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the provisions of s.40A(3) in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case is justified in law. There is no dispute that the provisions of s.40A(3) apply to block assessments in general. The provision however, would apply only where expenditure in question has been incurred and claimed in the computation of income. The Supreme Court, in the case of Attar Singh Gurmukh Singh Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ludhiana (191 ITR 667), reiterates this position as well. In the present case, the Tribunal confirms as a finding of fact at para 17 of its order that no expenditure has been incurred except the investment in gold. The consideration paid towards the investment has been duly brought to tax as unexplained income, such income not having ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
