Smt. Veena Rani Gupta, Ludhiana V. ACIT, Ludhiana

ITA 1024/CHANDI/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 68534 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 29-07-2013
• Assessment Year: 1998-1999
• Appeal Filed On: 20-07-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Search and seizure; Opportunity of being heard; Reason to believe; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 234B; 68; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES A CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1024/CHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR:1998-99 SMT. VEENA RANI GUPTA, VS THE ACIT, B-XVII-97, RANGE VI, BHARAT NAGAR, LUDHIANA. LUDHIANA. PAN NO. ABEPG-0082B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI JASPAL SHARMA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AKHILES H GUPTA DATE OF HEARING : 06.08.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25.09.2013 O R D E R PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J.M. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS)-II, LUDHIANA DATED 28.05.2010 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 ( 'THE ACT' FOR SHORT). 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A)/AO ARE WRONG IN NOT APPRECI ATING THE FACTS THAT SECTION 147/148 ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE INSTANT C ASE. THERE HAS TO BE REASON TO BELIEVE AND 'REASON TO BELIEVE' MEANS THAT THE A.O. SHOULD BE SATISFIED THAT THERE HAS BEEN ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME. THE HON'BLE SC OF IN DIA IN CASE OF M/S GANGA SHARAN & SONS PVT.LTD. VS ITO (1981)130-ITR-L,HELD THAT FOR REOPENING AN ASSESSMENT, THERE SHOULD BE RATIONAL AND INTELLIGIB LE NEXUS BETWEEN THE REASONS AND THE BELIEF. THERE WAS NO INFORMATION ON RECORD WHICH COULD PROVIDE FOUNDATION FOR THE AO'S BELIEF THAT THE APPELLANT'S INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. 2. THAT THE LD.CIT(A)/AO ARE WRONG IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THERE WAS NO LINK BETWEEN FACTS FOUND AND SATISFACTION ARRIVE D BY THE AO.THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER ALLEGATION THAT THE APPELLANT ENTERED INTO BOGUS TRANSACTIONS, AMOUNT PAID BY CHEQUE ULTIMATELY RETURNED IN CASH A FTER ROUTING THROUGH BANK AND THERE WAS NO MENTION AS TO WHEN AND BY WHAT TRA NSACTION SPECIFIC AMOUNT WHICH HAS BEEN PAID BY CHEQUE HAS RETURNED 3. THAT THE LD.CIT(A)/AO ARE WRONG IN NOT APPRECIATI NG THE FACTS THAT THE APPELLANT REQUESTED VIDE LETTER DATED;- 2 1.12.2002,22.01.2003,13.01.2003,06.02.2003 TO THE A SSESSING OFFICER TO SUMMON THE WITNESSES FOR CROSS EXAMINATION, ON WHOS E STATEMENT AN ADDITION OF RS.4,22,400/- AND RS.8,448/- WAS MADE BUT NO SUC H OPPORTUNITY WAS EVER AFFORDED. EVEN THE WITNESSES RESILED FROM THE EARLI ER VERSION AND HAVE STATED THAT THE EARLIER STATEMENTS WERE RECORD ED UNDER PRESSURE/DURESS. THE VIEWS OF HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARY ANA HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS M/S RADHEY SHAM SITA RAM REPORTED IN (2003) 22 IT REP.667, CIT VS SHAM LAI DECIDED BY HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH REPORTED IN (1981)127-ITR-816,ITO VS SURINDER SINGH DECIDED BY HON'BLE ITAT,BENCH-B, CHANDIGARH IN REPORTED IN (2005)26-IT REP.59 ARE RELIED UPON. 4. THAT THE LD.CIT(A)/AO ARE WRONG IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THE BASIS OF ADDITION IS ON PRESUMPTION ONLY THAT THE A PPELLANT MIGHT HAVE PAID CASH TO M/S ZAVERI DIAMONDS AND GOT THE CHEQUE.THIS ASSUMPTION IS WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE. SUSPICION, HOWEVER STRONG, COULD NO T TAKE THE PLACE OF EVIDENCE OF PROOF. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PROCEEDED MORE ON THE BASIS OF SUSPICION AND CONJECTURES WHICH IS A POOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HARD EVIDENCE. NO ADDITION IS CALLED FOR. 5. THAT THE LD.CIT(A)/AO ARE WRONG IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED ON 31.12.1997 U/S 65 OF THE VDIS,1997 BY THE REVENUE TO THE EFFECT THAT DIAMOND JEWELLERY WEIGHI NG 35.20 CARATS CONTINUES TO BE VALID AND SUBSISTING.IN FACT, NO PROCEEDINGS HAV E BEEN INITIATED SO FAR TO CANCEL THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE APPELLANT UNDE R VDIS,1997. 6. THAT THE LD.CIT(A)/AO ARE WRONG IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THE DIAMOND JEWELLERY UNDER VDIS,1997 FOR RS.4,22,400/- ,THE SAME WAS ACCEPTED IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT U/S 143(1), HOWEVER, IN THE REASSESSMENT ORDER, THE CLAIM IS DISBELIEVED MAINLY BY RELYING ON THE STATEMENT R ECORDED DURING SURVEY/RAID OPERATION ON M/S ZAVERI DIAMONDS WHICH WERE RETRACT ED THEREAFTER. NO ADDITION IS CALLED FOR. 7. THAT THE LD.CIT(A)/AO ARE WRONG IN NOT APPRECIAT ING THE FACTS THAT THE APPELLANT HAS SUCCESSFULLY SHOWN THE EXISTENCE OF D IAMOND JEWELLERY PRIOR TO THE SALE, THE PERSON TO WHOM IT IS SOLD, AND ALSO THE C ONSIDERATION RECEIVED THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE NO.711839/16.03.1998 DRAWN ON PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, AND, THEREFORE, THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITION OD RS.4,22,400/- AND RS.8,448/-. 8. THAT THE LD.CIT(A)/AO ARE WRONG IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT SALE TRANSACTION OF DIAMOND JEWELLERY DECLARED UNDER VDI S,1997, BETWEEN THE APPELLANT AND M/S ZAVERI DIAMONDS HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE SALES TAX AUTHORITIES AND THE ASSESSMENT MADE THEREUNDER HAVE ATTAINED FINALITY. NO ADDITION IS CALLED FOR. 9. THAT THE LD.CIT(A)/AO ARE WRONG IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THE DIAMOND JEWELLERY CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN SOLD BY THE APPELLANT WAS NOT FOUND WITH THE PURCHASER (M/S ZAVERI DIAMOND)OR HI S ASSOCIATES CANNOT BE HELD AGAINST THE APPELLANT, BECAUSE , ADMI TTEDLY, THE SAID DIAMOND JEWELLERY DECLARED UNDER VDIS,1997, IS ALSO NOT FOUND WITH THE APPELLANT AFTER THE SALE IS EFFECTED. IF EXISTENCE OF THE DIAMOND J EWELLERY WITH THE APPELLANT PRIOR TO THE SALE IS EVIDENCED BY THE VDIS,1997, CE RTIFICATE AND ON SALE OF THE SAID JEWELLEREY ,THE APPELLANT HAS RECEIVED THE CON SIDERATION WHICH IS DULY ACCOUNTED FOR , THEN THE MERE FACT THAT JEWELLERY S OLD BY THE APPELLANT IS NOT FOUND WITH THE PURCHASER CANNOT BE A GROUND TO HOLD THAT THE TRANSACTION WAS BOGUS AND THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT WAS THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. 10. THAT THE LD.CIT(A)/AO ARE WRONG IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THE AO HAS NOT GATHERED ANY EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT THE A PPELLANT HAD GIVEN CASH TO M/S ZAVERI DIAMOND AND HAS NOT MADE ANY EFFORTS TO LINK THE CASH RECEIVED AND DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF M/S ZAVERI DIAMOND WAS INFACT PAID BY THE 3 APPELLANT. THE DECISION OF THE AO IN DISCARDING THE SALE AND HOLDING THAT AMOUNT OF RS.4,22,400/- AND 8,448/- REPRESENTED THE UNDISCLOS ED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT IS BASED ON CONJECTURES AND SURMISES AND IS NOT BAS ED ON ANY INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE GATHERED PRIOR TO OR DURING THE COURSE OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 11. THAT THE LD.CIT(A)/AO ARE WRONG IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE WAS TRANSFERRED TO ACIT FROM ITO WITHOUT AFFORDING ANY OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD WHICH ACTION IS BAD IN LAW. 12. THAT THE LD.CIT(A)/AO ARE WRONG IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT NO INTEREST IS LEVIABLE U/S 234-B.234-C WHEN THERE IS NO SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS IN THE REASSESSMENT ORDER. 13. THAT ADDITIONAL DEMAND CREATED MAY KINDLY BE STAYED TILL THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT IS HEARD OR DISPOSED OF. 14. THAT THE APPELLANT RESERVE THE RIGHT TO ADD, AMEND, DELETE OR VERY ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE SAME IS HEARD OR DISPOSED OF. 15. THAT REASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S 148/143(3) IS ILLEGAL, BAD IN LAW, UNCALLED FOR, AGAINST LAW & FACTS ON THE FILE WHICH MAY PLEASE BE QUASHED AND OBLIGE. 3. THE GROUND NOS. 1 & 2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AGA INST RE-OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT ARE NOT PRESSED AND HENCE, THE SA ME ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 4. THE ISSUE IN GROUND NOS. 3 TO 11 RAISED BY THE A SSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS. 422,400/- AND RS. 8448/-. THE BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE RETUR N OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 86,220/-. IN THE RETURN OF INC OME, THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS OF RS. 170872/- ON SALE OF DIAMONDS JEWELLERY TO M/S ZAVERI DIAMONDS. THE RETURN OF IN COME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE ACT. THEREAFTER, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REOPENED BY ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS CONFRONTED WITH THE FACT THAT THE SALE OF DIAMO ND JEWELLERY TO M/S ZAVERI DIAMONDS WAS BOGUS AS DETAILED ENQUIRIES WER E MADE BY THE DEPARTMENT AND ENTIRE TRANSACTIONS OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF DIAMOND JEWELLERY SHOWN BY M/S ZAVERI DIAMONDS WERE FOUND T O BE BOGUS. IT WAS REVEALED THAT THE SAID CONCERN M/S ZAVERI DIAMO NDS WAS ONLY ISSUING BILLS/VOUCHERS FOR PURCHASE OF CERTAIN JEWE LLERY/DIAMONDS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN VIEW THEREOF, HELD THAT THE A MOUNT OF RS. 4 422,400/- INTRODUCED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED SALE OF DIAMOND JEWELLERY TO M/S ZAVERI DIAMONDS TO BE INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. THE SAID ADDITION WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF ENQUIRIES MADE AND THE FINDINGS IN THE CAS E OF M/S ZAVERI DIAMONDS. FURTHER ADDITION OF RS. 8448/- WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEING THE COMMISSION PAID ON THE SAID ENTRY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE CIT(APPEALS), IN THE FIRST ROUND OF APPELLAT E PROCEEDINGS HELD THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE VALID, IN VIEW OF TH E DECLARATION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER VDIS SCHEME, 1997. THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 730/CHD/2004 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE IN BUNCH OF APPEALS WITH LEAD ORDER IN ITA 125 2/CHD/2004 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 IN THE CASE OF DCIT, LUD HIANA VS SHRI ADITYA JAIN VIDE ORDER DATED 31.10.2008 RESTORED TH E ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT(APPEALS), CONSEQUENT TO THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL OF EVEN DATE IN THE CASE OF M/S ZAVERI DIAMONDS IN ITA NO. 503/CHD/2004 ( ORDER DATED 31.10.2008). THE CIT(APPEALS) WAS DI RECTED TO DENOVO CONSIDER THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND PASS ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 6. IN THE SECOND ROUND OF PROCEEDINGS, THE CIT(APPE ALS) VIDE ORDER DATED 28.5.2010 CONSIDERED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNA L PASSED IN THE CASE OF M/S ZAVERI DIAMONDS (SUPRA) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE SALE AND PURCHASES SHOWN BY THE SAID CONCERN WERE BOGUS. IN VIEW OF THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE CIT(APPEALS) CONCLUDE D THAT THE SALE OF DIAMOND JEWELLERY TO M/S ZAVERI DIAMONDS BY THE ASS ESSEE WAS BOGUS SALE. ACCORDINGLY, ADDITION OF RS. 422,400/- MADE UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF COMMI SSION PAID FOR 5 GETTING BOGUS ENTRIES AT RS. 8448/- WAS UPHELD. TH E ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE SAID ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS). 7. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE STATEMENTS IN THE CASE OF M/S ZAVERI DIAMONDS WERE RECORDED AT TH E BACK OF THE ASSESSEE AND NO CROSS-EXAMINATION WAS PROVIDED TO T HE ASSESSEE AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE SAME CANNOT BE RELIED UPON. 8. THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE POINTED OUT THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S ZAVERI DIAMONDS HAVE BE EN CONFIRMED BY THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AND IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF DIAMOND JEWELLERY CLAIMED TO BE MADE BY THE SAID CONCERN M/S ZAVERI DIAMONDS WAS BOGUS AND CONSEQUENTLY, ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT IS TO BE UPHELD. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ISSUE ARISING IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS IN RELAT ION TO THE INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE HEAD LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS. THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE A DECLARATION UNDER VDIS SCHEME 1 997 AND DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, HAD SHOWN SALE OF DIA MOND JEWELLERY AT RS. 422,400/-. THE SAID JEWELLERY WAS CLAIMED TO B E SOLD TO M/S ZAVERI DIAMONDS AS PER THE BILL DATED 14.3.1998. TH E CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REOPENED UNDER SECTION 147/148 OF THE ACT AS CERTAIN ENQUIRIES WERE MADE IN THE CASE OF M/S ZAVERI DIAMO NDS AND IT CAME TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE PURCHAS ES AND SALES MADE BY THE SAID CONCERN M/S ZAVERI DIAMONDS WERE B OGUS. 10. THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S ZAVERI DIAMONDS (SUPRA) HAD VIDE ORDER DATED 31.10.2008 HELD THE SAID CONCERN T O BE ENGAGED IN BOGUS TRANSACTIONS OF SALE AND PURCHASE OF DIAMONDS , IN VIEW OF THE 6 FACT THAT THERE WAS HUGE CASH DEPOSITS WITHIN THE P ERIOD OF ABOUT 1 YEARS. THE TRIBUNAL VIDE PARA 29 HELD AS UNDER : 29. MOREOVER WE FIND THAT THE ENTIRE TRANSACTIONS O F PURCHASE AND SALE OF JEWELLERY, AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT IN A PECULIAR MANNER AND ABNORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, WHICH T O OUR MIND, IRREFUTABLY LEADS TO A CONCLUSION THAT THERE IS NO BUSINESS PER SE OF THE ASSESSEE OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF JEWELLERY. IT IS F IRSTLY SEEN IN THIS REGARD THAT ASSESSEE FIRM DID NOT EVEN HAVE THE NECESSARY INFRASTRUCTURE TO CARRY ON THE BUSINESS OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF DIAMOND JEW ELLERY. ONE OF THE MOST ESSENTIAL INFRASTRUCTURE, AS HAS ALSO BEEN ADM ITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS OF PURCHASE AND SALES OF JEWELLERY, IS DHARMKANTA, ON THE BASIS OF WHICH, THE JEWELLERY IS PURCHASED AND SOLD. IT MAY BE STATED HERE THAT TOTAL WEIGHT OF THE JEWE LLERY PURCHASED AND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE IS SUBSTANTIAL AS REFLECTED IN QUANTITATIVE DETAILS ON PAGE 7 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND THE TOTAL VALUE OF BUS INESS CARRIED OUT IS IN EXCESS OF RS.16 CRORES. IT IS NOWHERE STATED THAT A SSESSEE HAS ANY DHARAMKANTA WHICH COULD HAVE ENABLED IT TO CARRY ON SUCH BUSINESS AND THAT TOO OF SUCH HUGE VOLUMES. THE FACT IS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT IN OWNERSHIP OF ANY WEIGHING SCALE TO WEIGH THE JEWELL ERY ALLEGEDLY PURCHASED OR SOLD AND EVEN OTHERWISE NO PARTICULARS HAVE BEEN PLACED ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT SUCH JEWELLERY WAS ALLEGEDLY PU RCHASED AND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE WITH A WEIGHING SCALE OF THIRD PARTY. IN FACT, THE EVIDENCE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SHAPE OF PURCHASE BILLS AND SALES BILLS DO NOT INCLUDE THE WEIGHMENT SLIPS, WHICH AS PER THE A DMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THE FUNDAMENTAL REQUIREMENT FOR ANY TRA NSACTION OF PURCHASE/SALE OF JEWELLERY. INFACT DURING THE COURS E OF THE INSTANT PROCEEDINGS A SPECIFIC QUESTION WAS PUT TO THE ASSE SSEE BY THE BENCH, TO WHICH IT WAS STATED THAT SO FAR AS THE TRANSACTION OF PURCHASE IS CONCERNED, THE WEIGHMENT SLIPS HAVE BEEN HANDED OVE R TO THE SELLER OF THE JEWELLERY AND AS REGARD THE TRANSACTIONS OF SALES, THEY HAD BEEN HANDED OVER TO THE BUYERS OF JEWELLERY AND NO RECORDS HAVE BEEN MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEP T SUCH A FALLACIOUS STATEMENT MADE PARTICULARLY IN LIGHT OF THE FACT TH AT EVEN THE BASIC PARTICULARS OF THE PERSON, FROM WHOM SUCH WEIGHMENT HAS BEEN GOT DONE IS NOT BROUGHT TO RECORD. ALSO, NO EXPENSES WITH RE GARD TO THE WEIGHMENT HAVE BEEN DEBITED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS BOOKS OF A CCOUNT. THIS CONCLUSION IS ALSO SUPPORTED FROM THE STATEMENT RECORDED OF ON E OF THE SELLERS OF THE JEWELLERY TO THE ASSESSEE. INFACT, EVEN IN THE COUR SE OF HEARING BEFORE US IN THE CASES OF THE SELLERS OF JEWELLERY, WEIGHMENT SLIPS HAVE BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD EITHER BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES OR EV EN BEFORE US. INFACT, THE ASSESSEE'S STAND IS MANIFESTED BY THE CONTRADIC TION IN THE ASSESSEE'S APPROACH VIS A VIS THAT OF THE SELLERS OF THE JEWEL LERY TO ASSESSEE. ONE OF THE SELLER STATED THAT THE WEIGHING SCALE WAS AVAIL ABLE IN THE SHOP OF THE ASSESSEE WHEREAS ADMITTEDLY THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT O WN ANY WEIGHING SCALE AND INSTEAD THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT WEIGHMEN T WAS DONE ON A DHARMKANTA OF ANOTHER PARTY, WHO HAS NOT EVEN BEEN IDENTIFIED.' 11. THE SAID VIEW OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS BEEN UPHELD B Y THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AND THE APPEAL OF THE A SSESSEE IN CIVIL MISC. NO. 24231-CII OF 2011 & ITA NO. 316 OF 2011 D ATED 19.01.2012 HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH C OURT. THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE BEFORE US CLAIMS TO HAVE MADE THE SALE OF THE 7 JEWELLERY DECLARED UNDER VDIS SCHEME TO M/S ZAVERI DIAMONDS. IN VIEW OF THE ENQUIRIES MADE IN THE CASE OF M/S ZAVER I DIAMONDS WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED THAT THE SAID CONCE RN WAS ENGAGED IN BOGUS TRANSACTION OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF DIAMOND J EWELLERY, WE ARE IN CONFORMITY WITH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BE LOW THAT THE SALE OF DIAMOND JEWELLERY SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH M/S ZAVERI DIAMONDS WAS BOGUS SALE. IN VIEW THEREOF, THE ADDI TION OF RS. 422,400/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRM ED BY THE CIT(APPEALS) UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT MERITS TO BE UPHELD. WE ALSO UPHOLD THE ADDITION OF RS. 8448/- BEING THE CO MMISSION PAID FOR GETTING THE SAID BOGUS ENTRY. UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS), WE DISMISS THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSE SSEE. 12. THE ISSUE IN GROUND NO. 12 RAISED BY THE ASSESS EE IS AGAINST CHARGING OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT, WHICH IS CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE AND HENCE, THE SAID GROU ND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 13. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMIS SED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 25 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2013. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 25 TH SEPTEMBER,2013 POONAM COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH