The ITO, Ward-5(2), Surat V. Smt. Kaminiben C.Shah, Surat

ITA 1525/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9530 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 5 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-01-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 03-01-2017
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 11-07-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VILAS V SHINDE
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained investment; Business income
• Section: 68; 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD D BENCH (BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA. NO: 1525/AHD/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 5 (2), SURAT V/S SMT. KAMINIBEN C. SHAH 302, SWAGAT COMPLEX, KAILASH NAGAR, OPP. SNEHMILAN GARDEN, SURAT- 395003 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: AACMPS5814J APPELLANT BY : SHRI VILAS V. SHINDE, SR. D.R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI HARDIK VORA, A.R. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 03 -01-201 7 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05 -01-2017 PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. WITH THIS APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE OR DER OF LD. CIT(A)-IV, SURAT DATED 07.03.2012 PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2008-09. ITA NO. 1525 /AHD/2012 . A.Y. 2008-0 9 2 2. THE SUBSTANTIVE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE READS AS U NDER:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.11,84,124/-MADE U/S. 68 OF THE ACT, IN RESPECT OF THE SAID AMOUNT SHOWN AS OUTSTANDING FOR THE PURCHASE OF GOL D, TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT BY THE AO. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.5,00,000/- MAD E U/S.69 OF THE ACT, BEING THE AMOUNT SHOWN AS PAYMENT TOWARDS PURCHASE OF FLAT ON 5.3.2008, TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT BY THE AO. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 9,00,000/- MA DE U/S.69 OF THE ACT, BEING THE AMOUNT SHOWN AS PAYMENT TOWARDS PURCHASE OF FLAT ON 31.03.2008, TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT BY THE AO. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE U/S.68 FOR THE SALE PRICE OF GOLD ORNAMENTS OF RS.4,56,000/- U/S. AS EXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. 5. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE U/S. 68 OF THE I T AC T, AS TREATING THE SHARE OF THE ASSESSEE OF RS.4,24,000/- OUT OF THE MATURITY VALUE OF IVP AS BENEFICIARY OF THE TRUST AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. 6. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. RS.L,00,000/-MADE U /S.68 OF THE I.T. ACT ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS AMOUNT SHOWN AS PAYABLE IN THE NAME OF SHRI. S.D. SHAH. 7. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE FOR THE SALE PROCEEDS OF GOLD RS.13,50,250/- WAS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED MONEY U/S.69A OF THE I.T. ACT. 8. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.3,20,114/- MADE ON A CCOUNT OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF GOLD SHOWN LESS I.E. RS.1,00,935/- AS AG AINST DETERMINED BY THE AO OF RS. 3,20,114/-. 9. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT (A)-IV, SURAT OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD AT LEAST THE ORDER OF TH E ASSESSING OFFICER. 10. IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT( A)-IV, SURAT MAY BE SET-ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER'S ORDER MAY BE RESTOR ED. 3. THE LD. D.R. STATED THAT HE HAS NOTHING TO ADD MORE TO WHAT HAS BEEN STATED IN THE STATEMENT OF FACTS APPENDED WITH FORM 36. IT IS THE SAY OF THE LD. D.R. THAT THE STATEMENT OF FACTS MAY BE TREATED AS REVEN UES WRITTEN ITA NO. 1525 /AHD/2012 . A.Y. 2008-0 9 3 SUBMISSION. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 4. WE HAVE GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE ORD ERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE STATEM ENT OF FACTS APPENDED WITH FORM 36. 5. ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL WHO FILED RETURN OF INCOM E ON 24.03.2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 2,77,893/- WHICH INCL UDED SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.1,00,935/-. THE RETURN WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT UNDER CASS. THE A.O. ALSO RECEIVED AIR INFORMATION. STATUTORY NOTICES WERE ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. 6. WHILE SCRUTINIZING THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSE E, THE A.O. NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN A LIABILITY OF RS. 11,84,124 /- PAYABLE TO M. RUHI EXPORTS. THE A.O. NOTICED THAT THE SAID LIABILITY H AS BEEN TOWARDS THE PURCHASE OF PURE GOLD OF 1300 GMS. ON PERUSING THE PURCHASE BILLS, THE A.O. WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE BILLS NOWHERE STATE THA T THE SELLERS HAVE MADE CREDIT SALE. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO JUSTIFY THE PURCHASE OF GOLD AND TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE CREDIT SHOWN. ASSESSEE FILED CONFIRMATION OF M. RUHI EXPORTS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED PAN DETAIL S ALONG WITH INCOME TAX ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND SALES TAX REGISTRATION NUMBER O F M. RUHI EXPORTS. THE A.O. WAS NOT CONVINCED WITH THE DETAILS FILED B Y THE ASSESSEE AND TREATED RS. 11,84,124/- AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U /S. 68 OF THE ACT. ITA NO. 1525 /AHD/2012 . A.Y. 2008-0 9 4 7. BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THAT SHE HAS CONCLUSIVELY PROVED THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACT ION. IT WAS PLEADED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHAR GED THE ONUS CAST UPON HER BY VIRTUE OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF TH E ACT. IT WAS ALSO BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT SUBSEQUENTLY T HE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD THE IMPUGNED 1300 GMS. GOLD AND THE A.O. HAS ACCEPTED T HE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS VEHEM ENTLY CLAIMED THAT THE A.O. HAS TAKEN TWO DIVERSIFIED VIEWS FOR THE SAME S ET OF TRANSACTION. 8. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND THE SUBMISSIONS AND THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS CONVINCED WITH THE GENUINENESS OF THE CREDIT ENTRY OF RS. 11,84,124/- AND DELETED THE ADDITION. 9. IN THE STATEMENT OF FACTS THE REVENUE HAS REPEATED THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE A.O. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE PURCHASE OF GOLD ORNAMENTS WAS DULY SUPPORTED BY PURCHASE BILLS WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CONFIRMED BY M. RUHI EXPORTS. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT SUBSEQUENTL Y THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD THE GOLD SO PURCHASED. WE FAIL TO UNDERSTAND, WHEN THE A.O. HAS ACCEPTED THE CAPITAL GAINS THEN HE HAS ALSO ACCEPTED THE COST OF PURCHASE, THEN HOW CAN HE TREAT THE PURCHASE AMOUNT AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CR EDIT. CONSIDERING THE FACTS IN TOTALITY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE AND THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 10. GROUND NOS. 2 & 3 RELATE TO THE DELETION OF THE ADD ITION OF RS. 5,00,000/- AND 9,00,000/- MADE U/S. 69 OF THE ACT. ITA NO. 1525 /AHD/2012 . A.Y. 2008-0 9 5 11. DURING THE COURSE OF THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS, THE A.O. NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN BALANCE OF RS. 47,04,00 0/- FOR THE PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL FLAT FROM RAJHANS. ON VERIFYING THE SOU RCE OF PURCHASE, THE A.O. NOTICED THAT SHRI ANKIT C. SHAH HAS SHOWN AN AMOUNT OF RS. 3,00,000/- TOWARDS PURCHASE OF THE SAID RESIDENTIAL FLAT. THE A.O. FURTHER NOTICED THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS. 9,00,000/- WAS SHOWN BY SHRI C.S. SHAH (HUF) TOWARDS THE PURCHASE OF THE RESIDENTIAL FLAT. AFTER PERUSING TH E RELEVANT LEDGER ACCOUNT OF ANKIT C. SHAH AND C.S. SHAH (HUF), THE A.O. WAS NOT CONVINCED WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE SOURCES OF INVESTMENT. THE A.O. ACCORDIN GLY TREATED RS. 5,00,000/- AND RS. 9,00,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVEST MENT OF THE ASSESSEE U/S. 69 OF THE ACT. 12. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY CONTEN DED THAT DUE TO SOME TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR THE AMOUNT AND THE DATE HAVE BE EN WRONGLY MENTIONED WHICH WAS DULY RECTIFIED IN THE DUE COURS E OF THE TIME. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT IN THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF RAJHANS CON STRUCTION PVT. LTD. TO JOURNAL ENTRIES HAVE BEEN PASSED AS ON 31.03.2008 S HOWING PAYMENT FROM SHRI ANKIT C. SHAH RS. 10,46,450/- AND FROM C.S. SH AH (HUF) RS. 9,00,050/-. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CLAIM, CONFIRMATION FROM THE BOO KS OF SHRI ANKIT C. SHAH AND SHRI C.S. SHAH (HUF) WERE FILED ALONG WITH THE COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF I.T. RETURN, COMPUTATION OF INCO ME, P & L ACCOUNT AND CAPITAL ACCOUNT. IT WAS FURTHER BROUGHT TO THE NOTI CE OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT BY MISTAKE THE DATE OF PAYMENT OF RS. 3,00,000/- MADE BY SHRI ANKIT C. SHAH HAS BEEN SHOWN AS 05.03.2008 INSTEAD OF 19.03.2007. ITA NO. 1525 /AHD/2012 . A.Y. 2008-0 9 6 13. SIMILARLY, IN RESPECT OF THE ADDITION OF RS. 9,00,0 00/-, IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE SAME WAS PAID ON THREE DIFFERENT DATES NAMELY:- 22.01.2008 RS. 2,00,000/- 31.01.2008 RS. 5,00,000/- 01.02.2008 RS. 2,00,000/- 14. IT WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE A.O. HAS TRIED TO VERIFY THE TOTAL PAYMENT OF RS. 9,00,000/- WHEREAS THE SAM E WAS PAID ON THREE DIFFERENT DATES. BANK PASS BOOK OF SHRI ANKIT C. SH AH AND SHRI C.S. SHAH (HUF) WERE ALSO SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). 15. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND THE SUBMISSIONS AND THE RELATED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS CONVINCED WITH THE PAYMENTS MADE BY SHRI ANKIT C. SHAH AND SHRI C.S. SHAH (HUF) AND DELETED THE ADDITIONS OF RS. 5,00,000/- AND RS. 9,00,000/-. 16. IN THE STATEMENT OF FACTS, THE REVENUE HAS REITERAT ED WHAT HAS BEEN STATED BY THE A.O. IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER. AFTER CAREFULL Y PERUSING THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES FIELD BEFORE US IN THE FORM O F A PAPER BOOK, WE FIND THAT THE AMOUNTS SHOWN TO HAVE PAID BY SHRI ANKIT C . SHAH AND SHRI C.S. SHAH (HUF) ARE DULY REFLECTED IN THEIR RESPECTIVE P ASS BOOK. IT IS ALSO AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THERE WAS A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRO R IN RESPECT OF THE DATES OF PAYMENT. IT IS ALSO TRUE THAT SHRI C.S. SHAH (HU F) HAS PAID THE AMOUNT ON THREE DIFFERENT DATES ALTHOUGH THE A.O. TRIED TO FI ND OUT THE PAYMENT OF RS. 9,00,050/- AS A TOTAL FIGURE. ITA NO. 1525 /AHD/2012 . A.Y. 2008-0 9 7 17. CONSIDERING THE CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCES QUA THE FACTS IN ISSUE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR OR INFIRMITY IN THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. C IT(A). GROUND NOS. 1 & 2 ARE ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 18. GROUND NO. 4 RELATES TO THE DELETION OF THE ADDITIO N OF RS. 4.56 LACS. THE A.O. FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN CREDIT OF RS . 4,56,000/- IN THE NAME OF SMT. RUKHIBEN SHAH. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EX PLAIN THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF THE TRANSACTION. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED T HAT THE SAID AMOUNT HAS BEEN RECEIVED FROM HER GRANDMOTHER-IN-LAW, WHO EXPI RED IN 1989 INHERITED GOLD ORNAMENTS, WHICH WERE SOLD FOR THE CONSIDERATI ON OF RS. 4,56,000/-. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT INADVERTENTLY THE ACCOUNTANT HAS SHOWN THE CREDIT IN THE NAME OF RUKHIBEN SHAH INSTEAD OF CREDITING THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE A.O. WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY DOCUMENT SHOWING THE TRANSACTION OF INHERITANCE . THE A.O. WAS OF THE OPINION THAT MERELY BY FILING THE CERTIFICATE OF VD IS, 1975 WOULD NOT EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CREDIT. THE A.O. ACCORDINGLY TREATED RS. 4,56,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT AND MADE THE ADDITION U/S. 68 OF THE ACT. 19. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE REITERATED WHAT HAS BEEN STATED BEFORE THE A.O. 20. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND THE SUBMISSIONS, TH E LD. CIT(A) WAS CONVINCED BY THE INHERITANCE OF THE GOLD. THE LD. C IT(A) WAS ALSO CONVINCED THAT SMT. RUKHIBEN SHAH HAD MADE A DISCLOSURE UNDER VDIS, 1975. AFTER ITA NO. 1525 /AHD/2012 . A.Y. 2008-0 9 8 CONSIDERING THE FACTS SUPPORTED BY THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES, THE LD. CIT(A) DIRECTED THE A.O. TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,56,000/-. 21. IN THE STATEMENT OF FACTS, THE REVENUE HAS REFERRED TO THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS OF THE A.O. MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER. AFTER GIVING A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHO RITIES BELOW AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE PROVES IN THE FORM OF VDIS CERTIFIC ATE AND CUSTOM CERTIFIED PURCHASE BILLS, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE ASSE SSEE HAS SUCCESSFULLY SHOWN THE POSSESSION OF THE GOLD ORNAMENTS AND THE SUBSEQUENT SALE OF THE SAME. WE, THEREFORE, DECLINE TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). GROUND NO. 4 IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 22. GROUND NO. 5 RELATES TO THE DELETION OF THE ADDITIO N MADE U/S. 68 OF THE ACT AT RS. 4,24,000/-. 23. THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS GIVEN HIS FINDING AT PARA 6.3 OF HIS ORDER WHEREIN HE HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,24,0 00/-. SINCE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O., WE FAILED TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THIS FINDING OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. GROUND NO. 5 IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 24. GROUND NO. 6 RELATES TO THE DELETION OF THE ADDITIO N OF RS. 1,00,000/-. 25. WHILE SCRUTINIZING THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE A.O. O BSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN LOAN OF RS. 8,80,000/- RECEIVED FROM FATHER-IN-LAW MR. S.D. SHAH. THE A.O. FOUND THAT SHRI S.D. SHAH HAS C ONFIRMED THE LOAN OF RS. ITA NO. 1525 /AHD/2012 . A.Y. 2008-0 9 9 7,80,000/-. THE A.O. ACCORDINGLY TREATED RS. 1,00,0 00/- AS UNEXPLAINED AND MADE THE ADDITION U/S. 68 OF THE ACT. 26. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT IN HIS BOOKS, SHRI S.D. SHAH HAS OPENED TWO LEDGER ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN ONE ACCOUNT BALANCE WAS RS. 7,80,000/- AND IN THE OTHER ACCOUNT RS. 1,00,0 00/- WAS SHOWN. AFTER VERIFYING THE LEDGER ACCOUNTS, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS C ONVINCED THAT THE DIFFERENCE OF RS. 1,00,000/- IS DULY EXPLAINED AND ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED THE A.O. TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,00,000/-. 27. AFTER CONSIDERING THE STATEMENT OF FACTS OF THE REV ENUE QUA THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION, WE FIND THAT S.D. SHAH WAS IN FACT H AVING TWO LEDGER ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE ONE WAS SHOWING BALANCE OF RS. 7,80,000/- AND THE OTHER WAS SHOWING BALANCE OF RS. 1,00,000/-. TH E ASSESSEE WAS TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF RS. 8,80,000/- AND CONSIDERIN G THESE FACTS IN TOTALITY, THE SOURCE STANDS EXPLAINED. WE DECLINE TO INTERFER E WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). GROUND NO. 6 IS DISMISSED. 28. GROUND NO. 7 RELATES TO THE DELETION OF THE ADDITIO N OF RS. 13,50,000/- MADE U/S. 69A OF THE ACT AND GROUND NO. 8 RELATES TO THE DETERMINATION OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS. SINCE BOTH THESE GRIEVANCES ARI SE OUT OF SAME SET OF FACTS AND ARE INTER RELATED, THEY ARE TAKEN FOR ADJ UDICATION TOGETHER. ITA NO. 1525 /AHD/2012 . A.Y. 2008-0 9 10 29. DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, T HE A.O. FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED SALE OF 4000 GMS OF GOLD FOR R S. 3,95,4500/- AND OFFERED LONG TERM AND SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS UN DER:- PARTICULARS QYT. (GMS) LTCG STCG TOTAL SALES 4000.00 13,50,250 26,04,250 39,54,000 LESS: COST OF ACQ. -F.Y. 93-94 -F.Y. 2006-07(OUT OF 3417.64) 1238.67 2761.33 13,55,483 -- 25,03,515 TOTAL 4000.00 (5,233) 1,00,935 -- 30. IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM OF LTCG/STCG, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED SALES BILL. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED BY THE A.O. WHO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE SALE BILLS DO NOT HAVE ANY SALES BILL NUMB ER. THE A.O. FURTHER FOUND THAT BOTH THE SALE BILLS HAVE DIFFERENT ADDRESSES W RITTEN ON THEM. THE A.O. FURTHER OBSERVED THAT IN THE EARLIER YEARS BALANCE SHEET, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN JEWELLERY IN HER BALANCE SHEET AND THE SAME S HOWN UNDER THE HEAD GOLD IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF 31.03.2008. ACCORDIN G TO THE A.O., THE QUANTITY OF GOLD BROUGHT FORWARD FROM 2006-07 WAS N OT SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE A .O. FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HOLDING 3417.64 GMS OF GOLD F ROM A.Y. 2006-07 WHEREAS 4000 GMS. HAVE BEEN SOLD IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE GOLD OF 582.36 GMS WAS SOLD FROM OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE A.O. CONCLUDED BY MAKING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. 31. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE FILED THE COMPU TATION OF CAPITAL GAIN AND THE SAME READS AS UNDER:- PARTICULARS YEAR OF ACQ. COST SALE LTCG/STCG ITA NO. 1525 /AHD/2012 . A.Y. 2008-0 9 11 QTY. AVG. RATE RS. QTY. RS. INDEX COST OPENING BALANCE 93-94 1238.67 485 600.250 1,238.67 1,350,250 1,355,483 (5,233) PURCHASES 06 - 07 3,417.64 907 3,103,565 LESS: COST OF SALES 2,761.33 907 2,503,315 2,761.33 2,604,250 -- 100,935 CLOSING BALANCE 656.31 915 600.250 4,000.00 3,954,500 32. IN SUPPORT, THE ASSESSEE FILED COPY OF SALE BILLS A LONG WITH COPY OF BALANCE SHEET OF EARLIER YEAR. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED COPY OF PURCHASE BILL OF GOLD WEIGHING 3417.64 GMS PURCHASE IN F.Y. 2006-07. 33. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND THE SUBMISSIONS SUP PORTED BY RELEVANT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS CONVINCED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS IN POSSESSION OF THE IMPUGNED GOLD ORNAMENTS SOLD D URING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND DIRECTED THE A.O. TO ACCEPT THE C APITAL GAINS AS RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE. 34. THE STATEMENT OF FACTS BY THE REVENUE RELIED UPON T HE OBSERVATIONS OF THE A.O. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS SHOW ING 1238.67 GMS OF GOLD FROM 1993-94. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT IN THE YEAR 2006-07, THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED GOLD WEIGHING 3417.64 GMS. MERELY, BE CAUSE THE SALE BILLS HAD TWO DIFFERENT ADDRESSES OF THE ASSESSEE, THE SA ME CANNOT BE BRUSHED ASIDE LIGHTLY. MORE OVER AS FIND FROM THE FINDINGS OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, BOTH THE ADDRESSES ARE IN FACT OF THE SA ME RESIDENTIAL FLAT. SINCE THE CAPITAL GAINS HAVE ARISEN FROM THE GOLD SOLD DU RING THE YEAR THE ACQUISITION OF WHICH HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFULLY EXPLAIN ED BY THE ASSESSEE, WE ITA NO. 1525 /AHD/2012 . A.Y. 2008-0 9 12 DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE IMPUGNED GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE AND THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 35. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS D ISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 05 - 01- 20 17. SD/- SD/- (MAHAVIR PRASAD) (N. K. BILLAIYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER TRUE COPY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 05/01/2017 RAJESH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AHME DABAD