M/s Srinikraj V Kataria, Hubli V. ITO, Hubli

ITA 15/BANG/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0344 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 01-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 1998-1999
• Appeal Filed On: 07-01-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Wrong claim; Valuation report

Judgement Text

ITA NOS.15, 24 TO 26/BANG/2016 PAGE - 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH 'C', BANGALORE SHRI. ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1. ITA NO.15/BANG/2016 (ASST. YEAR : 1998-99) 2. ITA NO.24/BANG/2016 (ASST. YEAR : 1998-99) 3. ITA NO.25/BANG/2016 (ASST. YEAR : 1998-99) 4. ITA NO.26/BANG/2016 (ASST. YEAR : 1998-99) 1. M/S. SRINIKRAJ V. KATARIA, KARTA RAJESHKUMAR S. KATARIA, KOPPIKAR ROAD, HUBLI. PAN : AAFHS2511F 2. SHRI. S. B. SANKANNAVAR, APMC YARD, GADAG PAN : ADXPS7662J 3. SHRI. CHANDRAKANT S. SANKANNAVAR, APMC YARD, GADAG PAN : ADXPS7660L 4. SHRI. ASHOK S. SANKANNAVAR, APMC YARD, GADAG PAN : ADXPS5576M .. APPELLANTS V. 1. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -2(2), HUBLI 2. -4. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, GADAG .. RESPONDENT ASSESSEES BY : SHRI. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SHRI. K. R. NARAYAN, JCIT HEARD ON : 01.06.2016 PRONOUNCED ON : 10.06.2016 O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THESE ARE APPEALS BY DIFFERENT ASSESSES FOR ASSESS MENT YEAR 1998-99 AGAINST ORDERS OF CIT (A), HUBLI. SINCE THE FACTS LEADING TO THESE APPEALS ITA NOS.15, 24 TO 26/BANG/2016 PAGE - 2 FALL WITHIN THE SAME COMPASS, ALL THESE APPEALS ARE DEALT WITH THROUGH THIS COMMON ORDER. 02. FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ALL THESE ASSESSEE H AD FILED RETURNS FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR DECLARING INCOME, AS UNDER : TABLE NO.1 SL.NO. NAME OF THE ASSESSEE INCOME DECLARED RS. 1. SHRI. SRINIKRAJ V. KATARIA 74,780/- 2. SHRI. S. B. SANKANNAVAR 2,78,126/- 3. SHRI. CHANDRAKANT S. SANKANNAVAR 2,87,340/- 4. SHRI. ASHOK S. SANKANNAVAR 3,38,210/- 03. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT WAS NOTED BY THE AO THAT THESE ASSESSEES HAD CREDITED THE FOLLOWING SUM S AS SALE PROCEEDS OF GOLD/SILVER/BULLION : TABLE NO.2 SL. NO NAME OF THE ASSESSEE REALISATI ON FROM SALE OF GOLD / BULLION RS. REALISAT-ION FROM SALE OF SILVER RS. REALISAT - ION FROM SALE OF DIAMOND RS. TOTAL RS. 1. SHRI. SRINIKRAJ V. KATARIA 3,43,862 NIL NIL 3,43,682 2. SHRI. S. B. SANKANNAVAR 3,66,795 98,726 NIL 4,65,521 3. SHRI. CHANDRAKANT S. SANKANNAVAR 2,71,174 2,84,130 4,40,000 9,95,304 4. SHRI. ASHOK S. SANKANNAVAR 3,50,960 2,96,185 2,20,000 8,67,145 04. ALL THESE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF VDIS, 1997 (VDIS IN SHORT). UNDER THIS SCHEME ASSESSEES HAD DECLARED JEWELLERY VALUED AS UNDER: ITA NOS.15, 24 TO 26/BANG/2016 PAGE - 3 TABLE NO.3 SL. NO NAME OF THE ASSESSEE GOLD JEWELLERY RS. SILVER UTENSILS RS. DIAMONDS RS. 1. M/S. SRINIKRAJ V. KATARIA 3,36,219 NIL - 2. SHRI. S. B. SANKANNAVAR 62,558 10,572 - 3. SHRI. CHANDRAKANT S. SANKANNAVAR 1,69,980 18,519 45,000 4. SHRI. ASHOK S. SANKANNAVAR 2,19,992 18,596 40,000 05. WHEN QUERIES WERE RAISED ABOUT THE SOURCE OF TH E GOLD/BULLION SOLD, ASSESSEES STATED BEFORE THE AO THAT THESE WERE THE JEWELLERY DECLARED UNDER VDIS SCHEME AFTER CONVERTING IT TO BULLION. HOWEVER , AO DID NOT ACCEPT THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEES. ACCORDING TO HIM , M/S. MAHALAKSHMI JEWELLERS (MLJ IN SHORT) TO WHICH ASSESSEES HAD CLA IMED TO HAVE SOLD THE GOLD NEVER WORKED FROM THE ADDRESS GIVEN BY THE ASS ESSEE. AS PER THE AO, LANDLORD OF THE BUILDING WHOSE PREMISES WERE SHOWN AS THE ADDRESS OF M/S. MLJ HAD STATED THAT NO SUCH LEASE WAS GIVEN BY THEM TO MLJ AND NO POSSESSION WAS GIVEN. AS PER THE AO, THE SAID MLJ OCCUPIED THE PREMISES ONLY DURING THE PERIOD 27.03.1998 TO 30.11.1998. F URTHER AS PER THE AO, M/S. BALAJI REFINERY, THROUGH WHICH ASSESSEES HAD C LAIMED THE JEWELLERY TO HAVE BEEN ASSAYED INTO BULLION NEVER EXISTED. AS P ER THE AO, A LARGE NUMBER OF SIMILAR ASSESSEES WHO HAD DECLARED GOLD J EWELLERY THROUGH VDIS RETURN, HAD CLAIMED SALE OF SUCH GOLD THROUGH MLJ FOR SHOWING ITA NOS.15, 24 TO 26/BANG/2016 PAGE - 4 SOURCE. THE INFERENCE DRAWN BY THE AO WAS THAT SUCH SALES COULD NOT HAVE BEEN EFFECTED IN A SHORT SPAN OF FOUR MONTHS TIME A ND MLJ COULD NOT HAVE DONE BUSINESS TO THE TUNE OF RS.20 CRORES IN SUCH A SHORT SPAN OF TIME. THUS THE AO HELD IN ALL THE ABOVE CASES THAT THE SO URCE FOR THE CREDITS MENTIONED AT TABLE NO.2 ABOVE WERE NOT PROVED BY T HE ASSESSEES AND ADDITIONS WERE MADE ACCORDINGLY. 06. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEES MOVED IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A), WHO AFTER EXAMINATION OF THE VDIS SCHEME HELD THEY WERE TRYIN G TO MISUSE THE SCHEME. HE NOT ONLY CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF AO BUT ALSO DIRECTED ENHANCEMENT OF THE INCOME. 07. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, ASSESSEES HAD MOVED BEFORE T HIS TRIBUNAL AND THIS TRIBUNAL HAD DISMISSED SUCH APPEALS WITH FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS : 'I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE MATTER. IF I GO ON LY BY THE EVIDENCE IN THE PRESENT CASE, I MUST CONFESS THAT / MUST ACCEPT THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM BECAUSE IT IS SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE SUCH AS THE BILL ISSUED BY MAHALAXMI JEWELLERS, THE FACT THAT AMOUNT WAS REACHED BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH CHEQUE E TC. THERE IS ALSO A LETTER WRITTEN BY SHRI SIRAJ AHMED, WHO I S THE LANDLORD OF THE PREMISES FROM WHICH MAHALAXMI JEWELLERS CARRIED THE BUSINESS ( PG.1 OF THE PAPER BOOK), WHICH SAYS THAT THE PREM ISES WERE GIVEN ON RENT FOR 11 MONTHS FROM 23.10.97. THIS LETTER WA S STRONGLY RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE TO CON TRADICT THE ITA NOS.15, 24 TO 26/BANG/2016 PAGE - 5 FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT LANDLORD HAS STATED THAT THE PREMISES WERE OCCUPIED ONLY FROM 27/3/98. HOWEVER, I CANNOT IGNORE THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ORDER CITED ABOVE, ESPECIALLY IN PARAGRAPH 6.4 OF THE ORDER WHERE CERT AIN FACTS HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO DISCREDIT THE VERSION OF MAHALAXMI JEWELLERS. IN THIS PARAGRAPH EVEN THE LETTER OF THE LANDLORD DATED 23. 10.97 HAS BEEN REFERRED TO AND IT HAS BEEN REMARKED BY THE TRIBUNA L THAT THIS LETTER DOES NOT . CLEARLY SAY AS TO WHEN MAHALAXMI JEWELLERS HAVE AL SO BEEN ADVERTED TO IN THIS PARAGRAPHS AND IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE TRANSACTION WHICH MAHENDRA KOTHARI AND OTHERS HAD W ITH MAHALAXMI JEWELLERS HAVE NOT BEEN PROVED TO BE GENUINE. IT IS NOTEWORTHY THAT THE KOTHAIRS ALSO HAD EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE JEW ELLERY WAS SOLD TO MAHALAXMI JEWELLERY BUT DESPITE THIS THE TRIBUNAL B ASED ITS CONCLUSION ON THE EVIDENCE BROUGHT BEFORE IT TO DIS PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF MAHALAXMI JEWELLERS AND THE GENUINENES S OF THE TRANSACTION WHICH MAHENDRA KOTHARI HAD WITH IT. IN THE LIGHT OF THIS SITUATION BROUGHT OUT IN THE TRIBUNAL ORDER, I AM U NABLE TO ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE THAT MAHALAXMI JEWELLERS WAS A FIRM WHICH ACTUALLY EXISTED ON THE DAY ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS TO HAVE SOLD HIS JEWELLERY TO IT. I CANNOT CLOSE MY EYES TO THE FINDINGS, RECORDED BY T HE TRIBUNAL IN THE CITED ORDER, WHICH WAS BROUGHT TO M Y NOTICE FAIRLY BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF, AND H OLD RELYING ONLY ON THE EVIDENCE BROUGHT BEFORE ME, THAT THE SALE BY THE ASSESSEE TO MAHALAXMI JEWELLERS HAS BEEN PROVED. /THEREFORE HOL D, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL CITED ABOVE THA T DESPITE THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE P RESENT CASE, THE ITA NOS.15, 24 TO 26/BANG/2016 PAGE - 6 CLAIM CANNOT BE ACCEPTED IN VIEW OF THE FINDINGS RE CORDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ABOVE ORDER REGARDING THE EXISTENCE OF MAHALAXMI JEWELLERS. I ACCORDINGLY CONFIRM THE ADDITION AND D ISMISS THE APPEAL.' 08. ASSESSEES THEREAFTER CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF TH E TRIBUNAL BEFORE THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. HONBLE JURISDI CTIONAL HIGH COURT RELYING ON ITS OWN JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF ONE SMT. KAILASHI DEVI G. AGRAWAL [ITA NO.186/2004], WHERE ALSO FACT-SITUATI ON WAS SIMILAR, HELD AS UNDER IN ITS JUDGMENT, DT.22.09.2008 : ITA NOS.15, 24 TO 26/BANG/2016 PAGE - 7 ITA NOS.15, 24 TO 26/BANG/2016 PAGE - 8 09. PURSUANT TO THE ABOVE DIRECTIONS OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, CASES WERE AGAIN CONSIDERED BY THE AO. NOTI CES WERE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEES. CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEES WERE THAT THE GO LD ORNAMENTS WHICH WERE GIVEN FOR MELTING WITH M/S. BALAJI REFINERY, HUBLI, WAS THE VERY SAME WHICH WAS SHOWN BY THEM IN VDIS DECLARATIONS. ASSESSEES AGAIN RELIED ON THE SALE BILLS OF MLJ FOR SALE OF GOLD AND SILVER. AO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE BILLS ISSUED BY M/S. BALAJI REFINERY, HUBLI, FOUND THAT WEIGHT OF THE JEWELLERY DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEES, IN THE VALUATION REPORT SUPPORTING THE VDIS DECLARATIONS W ERE DIFFERENT FROM THE WEIGHT OF GOLD / BULLION THAT WERE SOLD. AS PER TH E AO ASSESSEES COULD NOT PROVE THAT WHAT WAS SOLD BY THEM WERE THE SAME GOLD JEWELLERY WHICH WERE DECLARED IN THE VDIS DECLARATIONS. AO ALSO NOTED T HAT SOME OF THE ITEMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY DECLARED IN VDIS COMPRISED OF ANTIQU E ITEMS AND ASSESSEES WHO WERE FINANCIALLY SOUND WOULD NOT HAVE SOLD SUCH OLD GOLD JEWELLERY. FURTHER AS PER THE AO, IF AT ALL THE ASSESSEES WANT ED TO SELL THE JEWELLERY THEY ITA NOS.15, 24 TO 26/BANG/2016 PAGE - 9 WOULD HAVE SOLD IT DIRECTLY WITHOUT MELTING AND SHA PING IT AS BULLION. THUS HE REACHED A CONCLUSION THAT WHAT WAS SOLD BY THE A SSESSEES WERE NOT THE GOLD JEWELLERY WHICH WERE DECLARED BY THEM IN VDIS. HE DID NOT ACCEPT THE SOURCE FOR THE CREDITS. ADDITIONS WERE MADE ONCE A GAIN. 10. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEES MOVED IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A) ONCE MORE. CIT (A) NOTED THAT M/S. BALAJI REFINERY, HUBLI THRO UGH WHICH ASSESSEES CLAIMED TO HAVE MELTED THE GOLD AND SILVER ARTICLES TO BULLION, NEVER EXISTED IN THE ADDRESS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEES. AS PER THE CIT (A), LETTERS ADDRESSED TO M/S. BALAJI REFINERY, HUBLI WERE RETURNED UNSERV ED. CIT (A) ALSO NOTED THAT GOLD AND SILVER REFINERY ASSOCIATION, HUBLI, H AD WRITTEN TO THE AO THAT NO SUCH REFINERY CALLED M/S. BALAJI REFINERY E VER DID ANY REFINERY WORK SINCE 15 YEARS. FURTHER AS PER THE CIT (A), THE IN SPECTOR DEPUTED BY THE AO HAD ENQUIRED NEAR JAIN MANDIR, KESHAVAPUR, HUBLI , AS WELL AS AZAD COLONY, HUBLI, WHERE, AS PER ASSESSEES, M/S. BALAJI REFINERY FUNCTIONED. AS PER THE CIT (A), INSPECTOR HAD ALSO VERIFIED WIT H THE OWNERS OF VARIOUS BUILDINGS IN KESHAVPUR, WHO VOUCHED THAT NO SUCH BU ILDING NAMED, AZAD COMPLEX, EXISTED NOR THEY NEW ANY BALAJI REFINERY. THUS ACCORDING TO CIT (A) ASSESSEES WERE UNABLE TO SHOW THAT THE GOLD AND SILVER JEWELLERY WHICH WERE DECLARED BY THEM IN THEIR VDIS RETURNS W ERE MELTED AND CONVERTED THROUGH THE CONCERN CALLED M/S. BALAJI RE FINERY, NOR WERE THEY ITA NOS.15, 24 TO 26/BANG/2016 PAGE - 10 ABLE TO SHOW THAT ANY SALE THEREOF WERE EFFECTED TH ROUGH ANY CONCERN CALLED MLJ. THUS THE CIT (A) UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE AO. 11. NOW BEFORE US, LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ONUS O N THE ASSESSEES TO SHOW THAT GOLD AND SILVER JEWELLERY DECLARED IN VDI S RETURNS WERE MELTED AND CONVERTED INTO BULLION AND SOLD WAS DISCHARGED. HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAD CLEARLY HELD THAT IF THE ASSESSEES W ERE ABLE TO SHOW THAT THE SALES WERE OF THE VERY SAME GOLD AND SILVER JEWELLE RY WHICH WERE DECLARED IN VDIS, THEN THE SOURCE FOR THE CREDITS STOOD EXPLAIN ED. AS PER THE LD. AR, M/S. BALAJI REFINERY HAD CLEARLY GIVEN THE DETAILS OF THE JEWELLERY ITEMS WHICH WERE GIVEN TO THEM FOR MELTING. LABOUR CHARG ES WERE ALSO PAID BY THE ASSESSEES. LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT COPIES OF BILLS I SSUED BY M/S. BALAJI REFINERY CLEARLY PROVED CONVERSION OF THE ORNAMENTS INTO BULLION. AS PER THE LD. AR, ASSESSEES CONCERNED HAD CONVERTED THE GOLD AND SILVER JEWELLERY TO BULLION SINCE IF SOLD DIRECTLY AS JEWELLERY THE ITE MS WOULD HAVE FETCHED MUCH LESSER AMOUNT. AS PER THE LD. AR IF ON AN ENQUIRY CONDUCTED AFTER TWELVE YEARS BY THE AO, M/S. BALAJI REFINERY WAS FOUND NOT AVAILABLE AT THE PREMISES MENTIONED, ASSESSEES COULD NOT BE BLAMED. THUS ACCORDING TO HIM, ASSESSEES HAD DONE WHAT ALL WAS NECESSARY AND POSSI BLE TO PROVE THAT WHAT WERE SOLD WERE GOLD AND SILVER, AFTER CONVERSION TO PURE MINERALS THROUGH M/S. BALAJI REFINERY. LD. AR HAS ALSO PLACED BEFOR E US COPIES OF ASSESSMENT ITA NOS.15, 24 TO 26/BANG/2016 PAGE - 11 ORDERS PASSED BY THE AO IN THE CASE OF ONE SHRI. SH AILESH V. PATEL AND SHRI. VITHALBHAI N. PATEL, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-9 9, WHERE ON SIMILAR SET OF FACTS THE CREDITS WERE ACCEPTED. 12. PER CONTRA, LD. DR STRONGLY SUPPORTING THE ORDE RS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW SUBMITTED THAT AO HAD DONE DETAILED ENQUIRIES INTO THE BILLS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEES FOR MELTING THE GOLD JEW ELLERY AS WELL AS FOR SELLING THE GOLD. AS PER THE LD. DR IT WAS QUITE U NUSUAL THAT BOTH THE REFINERY WHO MELTED THE GOLD AND SILVER JEWELLERY A ND THE JEWELLERY SHOP WHICH BOUGHT THE GOLD WERE NON-EXISTENT AT THE TIME OF ENQUIRY. GOLD AND SILVER MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION OF HUBLI, HAD ALSO CO NFIRMED THAT NO SUCH REFINERY EVER FUNCTIONED IN THAT PARTICULAR ADDRESS . THUS ACCORDING TO HIM ASSESSEES WERE MAKING BOGUS CLAIMS AND SHOULD NOT B E ALLOWED TO GET AWAY WITH SUCH CLAIMS. AS PER THE LD. DR ADDITIONS WERE RIGHTLY MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT (A). 13. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS AND HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. EVIDENCE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEES IN SUPPORT OF T HEIR CONTENTION THAT WHAT WERE SOLD BY THEM WAS THE SAME GOLD JEWELLERY AFTER CONVERTING IT INTO BULLION HAS BEEN PERUSED BY US. CASE OF ONE OF THE ASSESSEES, NAMELY SHRI. SRINIKRAJ V. KATARIA(HUF), HAS BEEN TAKEN AS AN EX AMPLE. THE VALUATION ITA NOS.15, 24 TO 26/BANG/2016 PAGE - 12 REPORT DT.23.12.1997, BILL FROM M/S. BALAJI REFINER Y, DT.25.01.1998 AND AND THE PURCHASE INVOICE ISSUED BY MLJ DT.26.01.1998 AR E REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: ITA NOS.15, 24 TO 26/BANG/2016 PAGE - 13 ITA NOS.15, 24 TO 26/BANG/2016 PAGE - 14 14. WHAT WE NOTE IS THAT ALL THE ITEMS WHICH WERE A PPEARING IN BILL ISSUED BY M/S. BALAJI REFINERY WAS ALSO MENTIONED IN THE V ALUATION REPORT FILED IN SUPPORT OF THE VDIS DECLARATIONS. PURCHASE INVOICE ISSUED BY MLJ ALSO SHOWS THE SAME WEIGHT OF BULLION AS MENTIONED IN TH E BILL OF M/S. BALAJI REFINERY. CASE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT M/S. BALAJI REFINERY AND MLJ WERE NOT FOUND IN KESHAVPUR, HUBLI. ASSESSEES WERE REPE ATEDLY QUESTIONED ABOUT THIS DURING THE COURSE OF SECOND ROUND OF PRO CEEDINGS. INSPECTORS REPORT RELIED ON BY THE AO WAS BASED ON AN ENQUIRY DONE MORE THAN 15 YEARS AFTER THE EVENT. THERE WAS NO WAY ASSESSEES COULD ENSURE THAT M/S. BALAJI REFINERY CONTINUED TO DO ITS BUSINESS ALL TH ROUGH. MUCH RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED BY THE AO ON A LETTER ISSUED BY GOL D AND SILVER REFINERY WELFARE ASSOCIATION, HUBLI, WHEREIN IT WAS MENTIONE D THAT NO REFINERY CALLED M/S. BALAJI REFINERY, DID ANY REFINERY WORK IN HUBLI SINCE 15 YEARS. HOWEVER, IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT EVERY REFINERY SH OULD BE A MEMBER OF AN ASSOCIATION. A GLANCE AT THE BILL ISSUED BY M/S. B ALAJI REFINERY DOES SHOW THAT IT WAS HOLDING A LICENCE. A LOOK AT THE PURCH ASE BILL ISSUED BY MLJ SHOW THAT IT WAS HAVING KST AND CST REGISTRATION NU MBERS. THESE REGISTRATIONS WERE EFFECTIVE FROM 23.10.1997. IN M Y OPINION, THESE EVIDENCE DO TILT THE CASE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE S. ASSESSEES HAD DONE WHATEVER POSSIBLE, WITHIN THEIR MEANS TO SHOW THAT THE GOLD JEWELLERY ITA NOS.15, 24 TO 26/BANG/2016 PAGE - 15 SOLD BY THEM WERE THE SAME GOLD DECLARED IN VDIS, A FTER CONVERTING IT INTO BULLION. ASSESSEES HAD SUBMITTED COPIES OF BILLS I SSUED BY M/S. BALAJI REFINERY WHICH DID SHOW SIMILAR DETAILS OF GOLD JEW ELLERY AS RETURNED IN THE VDIS. IN SUCH SITUATION WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT ASSESSEES HAD DISCHARGED THEIR ONUS TO SHOW THAT THE GOLD SOLD BY THEM WERE THE SAME WHICH WERE DECLARED BY THEM IN THE VDIS DECLARATION S, AFTER CONVERSION. REASONING GIVEN BY THE AO THAT ANTIQUE JEWELLERY WO ULD NOT HAVE BEEN SOLD BY THE ASSESSEES IS ONLY A SURMISE AND CANNOT DISLODGE THE EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE GOLD JEWELLERY WHICH WERE SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE WERE ANTIQUE IN NATURE. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE LO WER AUTHORITIES FELL IN ERROR IN DISBELIEVING THE SOURCE FOR CREDITS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEES CONCERNED. I HAVE NO HESITATION IN DELETING THE AD DITIONS MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEES. 15. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF ALL THE ASSESSEES STA ND ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10 TH JUNE, 2016. SD/- (ABRAHAM P GEORGE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MCN ITA NOS.15, 24 TO 26/BANG/2016 PAGE - 16 COPY TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) 5. DR 6. GF, ITAT, BANGALORE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR