Ramakant R. Sharma, Hubli V. ITO, Hubli

ITA 139/BANG/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0250 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 27-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 05-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SWAPNA DAS JT
• Assessee Lawyers: VINAY KULKARNI
• Keywords: Valuation report

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC B BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.139/BANG/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1999-2000 SHRI RAMAKANT R. SHARMA, C/O. M/S. SWASTIK PLYWOODS, NEW COTTON MARKET, LUTIMATH BUILDING, HUBLI. PAN: AHEPS 3881Q VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), HUBLI. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI VINAY KULKARNI, CA RESPONDENT BY : SMT. SWAPNA DAS, JT. CIT(DR) DATE OF HEARING : 27.06.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.06.2016 O R D E R THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS), HUBLI DATED 17.11.2015 FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 1999-2000 INTER ALIA ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS FAILED TO READ PR OPERLY, WHICH IS ALSO THE CASE WITH THE LEARNED ASSESSING O FFICER, THE DIRECTION GIVEN TO THE DEPARTMENT BY THE HON'BLE HI GH COURT AND PROCEEDED TO UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFI CER WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE DOCUMENTARY AS WELL AS CIRCUMSTANT IAL EVIDENCE AVAILABLE BEFORE HIM. ITA NO.139/BANG/2016 PAGE 2 OF 5 2. WHILE PASSING THE ORDER THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS ) HAS HELD THAT SALE IS NOT PROVED. THIS CLEARLY UNDOES T HE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE HONORABLE HIGH COURT REGARDING SALE TR ANSACTION. 3. IN THE ORDER THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS NOT G IVEN ANY CONCRETE REASONS TO REJECT THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED IN SUPPORT OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSETS SOLD ARE THE SAME ASSETS AS DE CLARED UNDER VDIS 1997, THOUGH IN DIFFERENT FORM. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, MODIFY , DELETE OR SUBSTITUTE ANY OR ALL OF THE GROUNDS AND TO FILE A PAPER BOOK AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE APPEAL. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND OTHER WRITTEN SUBMISSION T HAT MAY BE MADE DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, IT IS PRAYED TO HOLD THAT: 1. THE ASSETS SOLD ARE THE SAME ASSETS, MAY NOT BE IN THE SAME FORM, WHICH ARE DECLARED UNDER VDIS 1997. AND 2. THE ADDITION OF RS 5,37,680/- MADE ON ABOVE ACCOUNT BE DELETED. 2. THOUGH VARIOUS GROUNDS ARE RAISED, BUT THEY ALL RELATE TO INTRODUCTION OF CASH IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE ON SALE OF SILVER AND DIAMOND WHICH WERE DECLARED UNDER VOLUNTARY DISCLOS URE OF INCOME SCHEME, 1997 (VDIS). 3. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTED THAT CERTAIN INTRODUCTION OF CASH WAS EXP LAINED BY THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF SILVE R AND DIAMONDS. IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT UNDER VDIS, THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED THE SILVER AND DIAMONDS. THE DECLARATION WAS ACCEPTED UNDER VDIS AND LATER ON SILVER ARTICLES WERE CONVERTED IN TO SILVER BULLION WHICH WERE SOLD AND THE SALE PROCEEDS WERE INTRODUCED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. ITA NO.139/BANG/2016 PAGE 3 OF 5 THE AO HAS RAISED A TECHNICAL OBJECTION BY STATING THAT THE ITEMS DECLARED UNDER VDIS WERE NOT THE SAME, WHICH WERE SOLD AND T HE SALE PROCEEDS WERE INTRODUCED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 4. WHEN THE MATTER REACHED THE HONBLE HIGH COURT O F KARNATAKA, THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS REMANDED THE MATTER BACK TO THE AO TO GIVE A SPECIFIC FINDING AS TO, WHETHER THE ITEMS SOLD WERE THE SAME WHICH WERE DISCLOSED UNDER VDIS? 5. IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAS FURN ISHED THE DETAILS OF ITEMS SOLD AND THE EVIDENCE OF CONVERSION OF THE SILVER ARTICLES AND INTO SILVER BULLION. THE WEIGHT OF SILVER BULLION IS TH E SAME. THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAIN MA DE THE ADDITION. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS TRIED TO EXPLAIN THE FACTS WITH DETAILS, BUT IT WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO THE CIT(APPEALS). 6. BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A CO PY OF THE VALUATION REPORT, VDIS CERTIFICATE, COPY OF SALE OF SILVER BU LLION AND THE EVIDENCE OF CONVERSION OF SILVER ARTICLES INTO SILVER BULLION. FROM THIS EVIDENCE, THE ASSESSEE HAS TRIED TO EXPLAIN THAT THE SAME QUANTIT Y OF SILVER AND DIAMOND WHICH WAS DECLARED UNDER VDIS WAS SOLD. 7. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR STRONGLY OPPOSED THE CONT ENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND PLACED HEAVY RELIANCE UPON THE ORDER O F THE CIT(APPEALS). ITA NO.139/BANG/2016 PAGE 4 OF 5 8. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AU THORITIES AND DOCUMENTS PLACED ON RECORD IN THE LIGHT OF RIVAL SU BMISSIONS, WE FIND THAT THE SAME QUANTITY OF SILVER AND DIAMOND WHICH WERE DECLARED UNDER VDIS WAS SOLD. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED THE SIL VER ARTICLES AND DIAMONDS IN DIFFERENT FORM UNDER VDIS, BUT IN SALE BILL THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD SILVER BULLION AND DIAMONDS SEPARATELY. THE A SSESSEE HAS FILED EVIDENCE WITH RESPECT TO CONVERSION OF SILVER ARTIC LES INTO SILVER BULLION. 9. SINCE THE SAME QUANTITY WHICH WAS DISCLOSED UND ER VDIS WAS SOLD, WE FIND NO JUSTIFICATION IN MAKING THE ADDITION ON INTRODUCTION OF SALE PROCEEDS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. ONCE THE REVENUE HAS ACCEPTED THE DECLARATION UNDER VDIS AND ACCEPTED THE TAX DEPOSIT ED BY THE ASSESSEE, IT SHOULD NOT HAVE MADE A FURTHER ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF INTRODUCTION OF SALE PROCEEDS OF THE SAID JEWELLERY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCO UNT. WE THEREFORE FIND NO MERIT IN THE ADDITION MADE BY THE REVENUE AUTHOR ITIES. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) AND DELETE THE ADDITION. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 30 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2016. SD/- (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV ) JUDICIAL MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 30 TH JUNE, 2016. /D S/ ITA NO.139/BANG/2016 PAGE 5 OF 5 COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE.