9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 1328X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g and export of gold ornaments. While facts of all the assessment years before us are materially similar, barring variations in figures, we will take up the facts of the assessment year 1990-91 as that of the lead case. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 37,90,641/- on account of, what he termed as, excess consumption of gold. The background in which the excess consumption is computed is that there are differences in gold consumption vis-a-vis claim of the assessee and the requirement of the purity standards. While, for example, the assessee has shown gold consumption of 93.37% in ornaments of 22 carats, the purity level, as per the norms and export bills and custom certifications, is 91.66%. In the impugned assessment order, which was passed by the Assessing Officer on the original assessment being remanded to him, the Assessing Officer has made the addition of Rs. 27,74,890/- by observing as follows :- "3.1 As discussed earlier in this year also the assessee has continued in the business of export of Jewellery of different purities. In the A. Y 89-90, the then AO had passed an elaborate assessment order by making factual a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 4. I find that the arguments placed before me, during the course of proceedings, are identical to the arguments that were placed before the then ACIT, Circle-2, Ahmedabad, who had completed the re-assessment proceedings in respect of assessment year 2000-2001, as per order passed u/s l43{3) r/w section 254 of the Act on 23.2.2006, in view of the directions of the ITAT dated 3.9.2004 in assessee's own case for the said assessment year. All the issues arising for consideration out of the submissions made by the Ld. A.R. on behalf of the assessee during the hearing of the case under reassessment having considered and discussed at length by the said A.O. while completing the aforesaid re-assessment proceedings for A.Y. 20002001. He has given detailed reason in the said order for rejecting the contentions raised on behalf of the assessee. I find that in the course of reassessment proceedings related to assessment year under this order, similar evidence and documents have been filed, which have been duly considered in the aforesaid order for assessment year 2000-2001. Therefore, I do not find any reason to deviate from the findings given by the then ACIT, Cirle-2, Ahmedabad, in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 66% as certified by the Customs authorities. On the one hand the assessee is asserting the fact that its books of accounts are correct and complete and in view of the quantitative details available in the vouchers, bills, registers pertaining to issue and receipt of gold to and from the karigars, the percentage of 93.37% shown by it is correct. On the other hand, the assessee is disputing the certification as given by the customs authorities on the export invoice where the purity is indicated at 91.65%. We must in this connection point out that the discrepancy pointed out by the assessing officer has merged after a very careful and thorough going analysis made by the assessing officer with reference to the details furnished by the assessee itself. The assessing officer has considered the manufacturing cycle adopted by the assessee with regard to different ornaments of 22 carat, 20 carat 18 carat and 14 carat and has recorded his conclusions in a summarized form in para-16 of the assessment order which reads as under. ........................................ We also find that in paragraph-2.14 of the order of the ClT(A) (which we have quoted earlier) he has applied his mind to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1,480/-. After consideration of the entire evidence on record, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) as it is based on the date furnished by the assessee itself and also based on the inference drown from the books of account maintained by the assessee and the export documents. In this view of the matter, we uphold the impugned order of the CIT(A)." The aforesaid order of the tribunal is very exhaustive and covers all the arguments of the appellant. Assessing officer in his orders dealt with the submissions of the appellant. The new evidences submitted by the appellant do not prove anything in the light of the aforesaid discussion in the order of tribunal. Considering the facts of the cases in the light of aforesaid tribunal's decision, the addition made by the assessing officer in all the years is confirmed." 5. The assessee is aggrieved and is in appeal before us. 6. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record and duly considered facts of the case in the light of the applicable legal position. 7. We have noted that the Tribunal's order for the A.Y.1989-90, which is followed by the ld. CIT(A) in the order impugned b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts were carrying greater purity value, and therefore, greater content of gold, the assessee had no reason to make a misdeclaration. In either case, assessee was meeting with the minimum standard of 22 carat gold. What the assessee had to charge from its importers had nothing to do with what the assessee may declare in the export documents regarding the purity of gold. As per the by-lateral understanding, even if the importers would have paid the assessee for the gold purity at 91.66%, there was no reason why the assessee should shy away from declaring that the correct purity of the gold ornaments is 93.37%, if that was the real case. The CIT [A] also made a significant point in observing that the assessee could import only that much quantity of gold that was exported. By making mis-declaration therefore, the assessee was seriously reducing quantity of gold that would be available for import against the export undertaken by it. The analysis made by the Customs authorities also matched with that of the assessee's own declaration regarding purity of gold. 9. Had the revenue relied solely on the Customs analysis, we would have further examined the assessee's contention that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mption of gold, he submitted that these evidences show the circumstances under which the assessee was under compulsion to give higher purity level than required by standard norms. We have perused these evidences, and none of these evidences are in the nature of contemporaneous evidences or evidences to establish actual consumption of gold at higher purity level. 9. We find that the issue is squarely covered by Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court's judgement in assessee's own case for the assessment year 1989-90, against the assessee. As for the arguments of the assessee regarding, what he perceives as errors in the reasoning process, we can do no better than to quote the words of Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Ambika Prasad Mishra vs. State of U.P. (AIR 1980 SC 1762), that "every new discovery nor argumentative novelty cannot undo or compel reconsideration of a binding precedent." We humbly bow before the higher wisdom of Hon'ble Courts above and simply follow their words of wisdom. We are, therefore, not really inclined to even deal with learned counsel's analysis of "subsidiary reasons" which prevailed before their Lordships, as against the "real rea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
