Jewellery sale genuineness requires fresh verification; reopening challenge rejected as outside remand scope and finality attached.

Genuineness of an alleged jewellery sale was not established on the material before the Tribunal, so the transaction required fresh verification by the Assessing Officer with production of the jeweller, books of account, and relevant details. The matter was therefore remitted for de novo examination of whether the cheque receipts reflected a real sale or an accommodation entry. The assessee's cross objection against reopening under reassessment provisions was not entertained because it fell outside the scope of the remand and the reopening issue had already attained finality. The reassessment challenge was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the alleged sale of jewellery to the jeweller was a genuine transaction or an accommodation entry warranting addition and fresh verification; (ii) Whether the assessee's cross objection challenging reopening under the reassessment provisions survived in the face of the earlier directions and finality of the reopening issue.

Issue (i): Whether the alleged sale of jewellery to the jeweller was a genuine transaction or an accommodation entry warranting addition and fresh verification.

Analysis: The controversy centred on whether the cheques received against sale of jewellery represented a real sale or only an accommodation entry. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not produced sufficient documentary material before it to conclusively establish the genuineness of the sale. In view of the earlier High Court direction requiring an independent examination of the transaction, the Tribunal held that the assessee should produce the jeweller, along with books of account and relevant details, so that the Assessing Officer could verify whether the jewellery sale was real and whether the entry was genuine.

Conclusion: The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination of the genuineness of the jewellery sale, and the revenue's appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee's cross objection challenging reopening under the reassessment provisions survived in the face of the earlier directions and finality of the reopening issue.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the cross objection did not arise from the scope of the High Court's remand, which was confined to the genuineness of the jewellery transaction. It further recorded that the assessee had not separately pursued the reopening challenge before the High Court and that the reopening issue had attained finality. On that basis, the reassessment challenge could not be entertained in the cross objection.

Conclusion: The cross objection was dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The assessment issue relating to the jewellery transaction was sent back for de novo verification, while the reopening challenge stood rejected, leaving the revenue with a partial procedural success and the assessee without relief on the cross objection.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the genuineness of an alleged sale transaction remains unverified on the material before the Tribunal and the appellate remand requires factual inquiry, the matter may be restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication; a collateral reopening challenge that is outside the remand scope and has attained finality cannot be reopened in a cross objection.

---