Genuineness of jewellery sales sustained where purchasers were identifiable and no contrary evidence showed sham transactions.

Deletion of additions for alleged undisclosed income from sale of jewellery was upheld where the purchasers were identifiable, the sale proceeds were accounted for, and affidavits supported the genuineness of the transactions. The Court accepted the Tribunal's reliance on earlier precedent involving similar sales under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997, and found the Revenue's attempted distinction unpersuasive. In the absence of any contrary material from the Assessing Officer, and without examining the alleged middleman or proving the sales were sham, the allegation of non-genuineness could not stand. The genuineness of the transactions in the purchasers' hands was also not doubted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the deletion of additions made on account of alleged undisclosed income from sale of jewellery declared under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997 was justified when the purchasers were identified, the sale proceeds were accounted for, and there was no material to disprove the transactions.

Analysis: The Tribunal had followed the earlier decision concerning similar sales of jewellery declared under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997. The Court found that the distinction sought to be drawn by the Revenue did not displace that precedent, since the purchasers were identifiable, affidavits supported the genuineness of the transactions, and the Assessing Officer had not brought any contrary material to show that the sales were sham. The alleged payment of commission to a middleman, without examining that person or adducing evidence against the assessees, was insufficient to hold the transactions non-genuine. The Court also noted that the genuineness of the sales in the hands of the purchasers had not been doubted.

Conclusion: The deletion of the additions was upheld and the Revenue's challenge failed.

---