Smt. Umabai M Kothari, Hubli V. ITO, Hubli

ITA 86/BANG/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0337 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 09-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 1998-1999
• Appeal Filed On: 27-01-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: RAVISHANKAR S V
• Keywords: Wrong claim; Valuation report

Judgement Text

ITA.86, 106, 268/BANG/2016 PAGE - 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH 'C', BANGALORE SHRI. ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1. ITA NO.86/BANG/2016 (ASST. YEAR : 1998-99) 2. ITA NO.106/BANG/2016 (ASST. YEAR : 1998-99) 3. ITA NO.268BANG/2016 (ASST. YEAR : 1998-99) 1. SMT. UMABAI M. KOTHARI, C/O. LALIT HANDLOOMS, AVAIL SAL, HUBBALLI PAN : AKTPK9366N 2. SHRI. SATISH O. MAHAJAN, BELLARY GALLI, HUBBALLI PAN : ACTPM4006H 3. SHRI. ASHOK KUMAR GIRIDHARILALJI, KANCHAGAR GALLI, HUBBALLI PAN : ABQPJ4855M .. APPELLANTS V. 1. & 3. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1(4), HUBBALLI 2. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD -1(3), HUBBALLI .. RESPONDENT ASSESSEES BY : SHRI. RAVISHANKAR S. V, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SHRI. SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL, JCIT HEARD ON : 09.06.2016 PRONOUNCED ON : 17.06.2016 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.86, 106, 268/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. SMT. UMABAI M. KOTHARI 36,350/- 2. SHRI. SATISH O MAHAJAN 92,540/- 3. SHRI. ASHOK KUMAR GIRIDHARILALJI 54,726/- 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. SMT. UMABAI M. KOTHARI 1,30,650 3,06,125 NIL 4,36,775 2. SHRI. SATISH O MAHAJAN 2,57,798 NIL NIL 2,57,798 3. SHRI. ASHOK KUMAR GIRIDHARILALJI 3,61,920 NIL NIL 3,61,920 04. ALL THESE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF VDIS, 1997 (VDIS IN SHORT). UNDER THIS SCHEME ASSESSEES HAD DECLARED JEWELLERY VALUED AS UNDER: ITA.86, 106, 268/BANG/2016 PAGE - 3 TABLE NO.3 SL. NO NAME OF THE ASSESSEE GOLD JEWELLERY RS. SILVER UTENSILS RS. DIAMONDS RS. 1. SMT. UMABAI M. KOTHARI 1,39,660 10,400 - 2. SHRI. SATISH O MAHAJAN 2,07,628 NIL - 3. SHRI. ASHOK KUMAR GIRIDHARILALJI 1,51,074 NIL NIL 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 , THE CONCERNS TO WHICH ASSESSEES HAD CLAIMED TO HAVE SOLD THE GOLD NEVER W ORKED FROM THE ADDRESSES GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. AS PER THE AO, LA NDLORD OF THE BUILDING WHOSE PREMISES WERE SHOWN AS THE ADDRESS OF M/S. ML J, ONE AMONG THE CONCERNS WHO HAD PURCHASED THE BULLION / DIAMOND, H AD STATED THAT NO SUCH LEASE WAS GIVEN BY THEM TO MLJ AND NO POSSESSION WA S GIVEN. AS PER THE AO, THE SAID MLJ OCCUPIED THE PREMISES ONLY DURING THE PERIOD 27.03.1998 TO 30.11.1998. FURTHER AS PER THE AO, M/S. BALAJI REFINERY, THROUGH WHICH ASSESSEES HAD CLAIMED THE JEWELLERY TO HAVE BEEN AS SAYED INTO BULLION NEVER EXISTED. AS PER THE AO, A LARGE NUMBER OF SIMILAR ASSESSEES WHO HAD DECLARED GOLD JEWELLERY THROUGH VDIS RETURN, HAD CL AIMED SALE OF SUCH GOLD ITA.86, 106, 268/BANG/2016 PAGE - 4 THROUGH MLJ FOR SHOWING SOURCE. THE INFERENCE DRAWN BY THE AO WAS THAT SUCH SALES COULD NOT HAVE BEEN EFFECTED IN A SHORT SPAN OF FOUR MONTHS TIME AND 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 AB OVE CASES THAT THE SOURCE FOR THE CREDITS MENTIONED AT TABLE NO.2 ABOVE WERE NOT PROVED BY THE 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 ITA.86, 106, 268/BANG/2016 PAGE - 5 UPON BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE TO CON TRADICT THE 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 ITA.86, 106, 268/BANG/2016 PAGE - 6 FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL CITED ABOVE THA T DESPITE THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE P RESENT CASE, THE 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.86, 106, 268/BANG/2016 PAGE - 7 ITA.86, 106, 268/BANG/2016 PAGE - 8 09. PURSUANT TO THE ABOVE DIRECTIONS OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, CASES WERE AGAIN CONSIDE RED BY THE AO. NOTICES WERE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEES. CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEES WERE THAT THE GOLD ORNAMENTS WHICH WERE GIVEN FOR MELTIN G WITH M/S. BALAJI REFINERY, HUBLI, WAS THE VERY SAME WHICH WAS SHOWN BY THEM IN VDIS DECLARATIONS. ASSESSEES AGAIN RELIED ON THE BILLS OF THE CONCERNS TO WHICH SALE OF GOLD AND SILVER WERE MADE. AO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE BILLS ISSUED BY M/S. BALAJI REFINERY, HUBLI, FOUND THAT WEIGHT OF T HE JEWELLERY DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEES, IN THE VALUATION REPORT SUPPORTING THE VDIS DECLARATIONS WERE DIFFERENT FROM THE WEIGHT OF GOLD / BULLION THAT WERE SOLD. AS PER THE 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 ANTIQUE ITA.86, 106, 268/BANG/2016 PAGE - 9 ITEMS AND ASSESSEES WHO WERE FINANCIALLY SOUND WOUL D NOT HAVE SOLD SUCH OLD GOLD JEWELLERY. FURTHER AS PER THE A O, IF AT ALL THE ASSESSEES WANTED TO SELL THE JEWELLERY THEY WOULD H AVE SOLD IT DIRECTLY WITHOUT MELTING AND SHAPING IT AS BULLION. THUS HE REACHED A CONCLUSION THAT WHAT WAS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEES WE RE NOT THE GOLD JEWELLERY WHICH WERE DECLARED BY THEM IN VDIS. HE DID NOT ACCEPT THE SOURCE FOR THE CREDITS. ADDITIONS WERE MADE ON CE AGAIN. 10. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEES MOVED IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A) ONCE MORE. CIT (A) NOTED THAT M/S. BALAJI REFINERY , HUBLI THROUGH WHICH ASSESSEES CLAIMED TO HAVE MELTED THE GOLD AND SILVER ARTICLES TO BULLION, NEVER EXISTED IN THE ADDRESS GIVEN BY T HE ASSESSEES. AS PER THE CIT (A), LETTERS ADDRESSED TO M/S. BALAJI R EFINERY, HUBLI WERE RETURNED UNSERVED. CIT (A) ALSO NOTED THAT GO LD AND SILVER REFINERY ASSOCIATION, HUBLI, HAD WRITTEN TO THE AO THAT NO SUCH REFINERY CALLED M/S. BALAJI REFINERY EVER DID ANY R EFINERY WORK SINCE 15 YEARS. FURTHER AS PER THE CIT (A), THE IN SPECTOR DEPUTED BY THE AO HAD ENQUIRED NEAR JAIN MANDIR, KESHAVAPUR, H UBLI, AS WELL AS AZAD COLONY, HUBLI, WHERE, AS PER ASSESSEES, M/S . BALAJI REFINERY FUNCTIONED. AS PER THE CIT (A), INSPECTOR HAD ALSO ITA.86, 106, 268/BANG/2016 PAGE - 10 VERIFIED WITH THE OWNERS OF VARIOUS BUILDINGS IN KE SHAVPUR, WHO VOUCHED THAT NO SUCH BUILDING NAMED, AZAD COMPLEX, EXISTED NOR THEY NEW ANY BALAJI REFINERY. THUS ACCORDING TO CI T (A) ASSESSEES WERE UNABLE TO SHOW THAT THE GOLD AND SILVER JEWELL ERY WHICH WERE DECLARED BY THEM IN THEIR VDIS RETURNS WERE MELTED AND CONVERTED THROUGH THE CONCERN CALLED M/S. BALAJI REFINERY, NO R WERE THEY ABLE TO SHOW THAT ANY SALE THEREOF WERE EFFECTED THROUGH ANY CONCERN CALLED MLJ. THUS THE CIT (A) UPHELD THE ORDER OF T HE AO. 11. NOW BEFORE US, LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ONUS O N THE ASSESSEES TO SHOW THAT GOLD AND SILVER JEWELLERY DE CLARED IN VDIS RETURNS WERE MELTED AND CONVERTED INTO BULLION AND SOLD WAS DISCHARGED. HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAD CLEARLY HELD THAT IF THE ASSESSEES WERE ABLE TO SHOW THAT THE SALES W ERE OF THE VERY SAME GOLD AND SILVER JEWELLERY WHICH WERE DECLARED IN VDIS, THEN THE SOURCE FOR THE CREDITS STOOD EXPLAINED. AS PER THE LD. AR, M/S. BALAJI REFINERY HAD CLEARLY GIVEN THE DETAILS OF TH E JEWELLERY ITEMS WHICH WERE GIVEN TO THEM FOR MELTING. LABOUR CHARG ES WERE ALSO PAID BY THE ASSESSEES. LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT COPIE S OF BILLS ISSUED BY M/S. BALAJI REFINERY CLEARLY PROVED CONVERSION O F THE ORNAMENTS ITA.86, 106, 268/BANG/2016 PAGE - 11 INTO BULLION. AS PER THE LD. AR, ASSESSEES CONCERN ED HAD CONVERTED THE GOLD AND SILVER JEWELLERY TO BULLION SINCE IF S OLD DIRECTLY AS JEWELLERY THE ITEMS 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 ACC ORDING TO HIM, ASSESSEES HAD DONE WHAT ALL WAS NECESSARY AND POSSI BLE TO PROVE THE SALE OF GOLD AND SILVER JEWELLERY WERE MELTED THROU GH M/S. BALAJI REFINERY AND SOLD TO ONE OR OTHER CONCERNS WHO WERE DOING GOLD / BULLION BUSINESS. LD. AR HAS ALSO PLACED BEFORE US COPIES OF ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED BY THE AO IN THE CASE OF O NE SHRI. SHAILESH V. PATEL AND SHRI. VITHALBHAI N. PATEL, FO R THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99, WHERE ON SIMILAR SET OF FACTS THE CRE DITS WERE ACCEPTED. 12. PER CONTRA, LD. DR STRONGLY SUPPORTING THE ORDE RS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW SUBMITTED THAT AO HAD DONE DETAIL ED ENQUIRIES INTO THE BILLS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEES FOR MELTI NG THE GOLD JEWELLERY AS WELL AS FOR SELLING THE GOLD. AS PER THE LD. DR IT WAS QUITE UNUSUAL THAT BOTH THE REFINERY WHO MELTED THE GOLD AND SILVER ITA.86, 106, 268/BANG/2016 PAGE - 12 JEWELLERY AND THE JEWELLERY SHOP WHICH BOUGHT THE G OLD WERE NON- EXISTENT AT THE TIME OF ENQUIRY. GOLD AND SILVER M ERCHANTS ASSOCIATION OF HUBLI, HAD ALSO CONFIRMED THAT NO SU CH REFINERY EVER FUNCTIONED IN THAT PARTICULAR ADDRESS. THUS ACCORD ING TO HIM ASSESSEES WERE MAKING BOGUS CLAIMS AND SHOULD NOT B E ALLOWED TO GET AWAY WITH SUCH CLAIMS. AS PER THE LD. DR ADDIT IONS 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 I N SUPPORT OF THEIR 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. SATISH O MAHAJAN, HAS BEEN TAKEN AS AN EXAMPLE. THE VALUATION REPORT DT .18.11.1997, BILL FROM M/S. BALAJI REFINERY, DT.13.01.1998 AND THE PU RCHASE INVOICE ISSUED BY MLJ, DT.15.01.1998 ARE REPRODUCED HEREUN DER: ITA.86, 106, 268/BANG/2016 PAGE - 13 ITA.86, 106, 268/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. GROSS WEIGHT ALS O TALLIES. PURCHASE INVOICE ISSUED BY THE CONCERN WHICH PURCHASED THE G OLD / BULLION ALSO ITA.86, 106, 268/BANG/2016 PAGE - 15 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, WHICH MELTED THE ORNAMENTS AND THE CONCERN TO WHICH THE GOLD / B ULLION WERE SOLD 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 THE CONCERNS SHOW THAT THEY WERE HAVING KST AND CST REG ISTRATION NUMBERS. IN MY OPINION, THESE EVIDENCE DO TILT THE CASE IN F AVOUR OF THE ASSESSEES. ASSESSEES HAD DONE WHATEVER POSSIBLE, WITHIN THEIR MEANS TO SHOW THAT THE GOLD JEWELLERY SOLD BY THEM WERE THE SAME GOLD DECLARED IN VDIS, AFTER CONVERTING IT INTO BULLION. ASSESSEES HAD SUBMITTE D COPIES OF BILLS ISSUED BY M/S. BALAJI REFINERY WHICH DID SHOW SIMILAR DETA ILS OF GOLD JEWELLERY AS ITA.86, 106, 268/BANG/2016 PAGE - 16 RETURNED IN THE VDIS. IN SUCH SITUATION WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT ASSESSEES HAD DISCHARGED THEIR ONUS TO SHOW THAT THE GOLD SOL D 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 17 TH JUNE, 2016. SD/- (ABRAHAM P GEORGE) ACCOUNTANT ME MBER