TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 419X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee with regard to 1042 grams claimed to be received from the goldsmiths, requires fresh verification. Similarly, claim of the assessee that after excluding stones and converting the jewellery to 91.6% purity actual weight would only be 18302.790 grams also requires fresh look by the ld. Assessing Officer. The ld. Assessing Officer has to verify affidavits of the goldsmiths/ business associates filed by the assessee before coming to the conclusion whether the claim of source for 1042 grams of gold could be accepted. Thus, while deleting the addition for the value of gold jewellery received by the assessee from its family member/ relatives, we remit the issue regarding claim of the assessee on actual weight of jewellery found at the time of search, and source for 1042 grams claimed to have been received from business associates back to the file of the Assessing Officer for consideration afresh in accordance with law. Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. - I.T.A. No. 2718/Mds/2016 - - - Dated:- 11-1-2017 - SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Appellant : Shri. A.S. Sriraman, Advocate For ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 660 13 Sankesh 610 14 Smt. Lalita Bai 450 15 Gouthamchand Surana 388 16 N. Jegadesh 250 17 R.I. Deva 176 18 G. Sampathkumar 170 19 Anupdas HUF 166 20 Mr. V. Ramprakash 165 21 Mr. R. Somasundaram 115 Total 16544 However, ld. Assessing Officer was of the opinion that affidavits and documents in support of the gold jewellery claimed by the assessee as belonging to its family members and parties related to its business, were prepared after search, only as an after thought. As per ld. Assessing Officer, Wealth Tax returns of the family members/relatives filed in support of the claim of gold deposits pertained to years prior to financial year 2003- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation of very same relatives who had affirmed depositing gold jewellery totaling 15502 grams with the assessee. Further, as per assessee gold jewellery given by goldsmith which were relating to its business, came to 1042 grams and this was also supported by affidavits from concerned persons. Contention of the assessee was that ld. Assessing Officer had relied on gold deposit agreements found at the time of search, aggregating 4437 grams ignoring the availability of gold jewellery received from very same family members which were reflected in respective VDIS declaration/Wealth Tax returns. Thus, as per assessee a part of the source was accepted whereas other part was rejected. As per assessee this was not a logical approach. Assessee in its submission before ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) categorized the gold jewellery deposits received from its family members and others and explained the difference in gold jewellery as under:- Undisclosed investment - 21,456.550 gms Net Weight - 20,956.690 gms Converted to 22 carat purity ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nclusion of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was that the stereo- type affidavits all of which were dated 28.11.2013 filed by the assessee in support of deposits of gold jewellery in excess of what was mentioned above, was only an after thought and a story cooked up by the assessee. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) noted that assessee has made this claim after one year from the date of search, catching hold of people from his community who had filed Wealth Tax returns. Further, as per ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), it could not be believed that women who had emotional attachment towards their jewellery handed over such jewellery to the assessee. He thus, rejected the contention of the assessee and confirmed the addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer. 6. Now before us, the ld. Authorised Representative strongly assailing the orders of the lower authorities submitted that jewellery weighing of 15502 grams received from relatives/family member and 1042 grams received from its business associates who were gold smiths were supported by respective affidavits. As per the ld. Authorised Representative these were ignored and rejected without any reasons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... variation in quantity out of gold jewellery deposits totaling to 15502 grams claimed to have been received from relatives, ld. Assessing Officer had accepted 4437grams but rejected 11065 grams. Reason for accepting 4437 grams is presumably based on a reply given to question No.7 recorded from the assessee at the time of search which has been reproduced by us at para 5 above. Contention of the assessee however was that it had actually received more than what was mentioned in the statement and this was supported by affidavits received from respective relatives. Details of the claim of gold deposits from relatives and the extent to which it was accepted and extent to which it was supported by the Wealth Tax and VDIS returns of respective persons were as under:- Sl. No Name of family members PAN Total Gold Gold deposit accepted by Assessing Officer Gold reflected in VDIS Gold Deposit reflected in WT Return 1 Mrs. Kanchana Bai AACPB6980G 1635 450 1650 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be used as an evidence against the person making such statement in any proceedings under the Act. Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. S. Jayalakshmi AmmaL (TCA Nos.488 and 489/2016, dated 01.08.2016) had held that there could be no addition based on Sec. 132(4) of the Act alone without corroborative evidence. Thus, an assessee can always bring in evidence to show that what was stated by him was incorrect. Where the assessee asserts that it had received as gold deposits from its family members/ relative more than what it was stated at the time of search and such assertion is supported by affidavits and corroborative evidences likes VIDS declaration of the giver/ creditor and copies of Wealth Tax returns of the giver/creditors, in our opinion it was incorrect to brush it aside. Lower authorities simply went by a presumption that the claim was an after thought. Gold deposits agreements stipulates a return on investments to the credit and therefore this cannot be deemed gratuitous transactions. 9. Even otherwise, when the relatives/family members had come forward to file affidavit in support of deposit of gold jewellery and which were in turn supported by VDIS/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
