1992 (7) TMI 146 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Upholds Decision Dismissing Revenue's Appeal on Income Tax Section 69A Addition

Income-Tax Officer. Versus Rajmal Lakhichand.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the revenue's appeal. The addition of Rs. 45,454 under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act was deemed ... Assessing Officer, Business Premises, Central Excise, Purchase And Sale Issues Involved:1. Validity of the addition of Rs. 45,454 under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Evaluation of the explanation provided by the assessee regarding the excess stock of gold.3. Applicability of Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.4. Relevance of judgments in similar cases.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Addition of Rs. 45,454 under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961The revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order, which deleted the addition of Rs. 45,454 made by the ITO under Section 69A. The ITO had assessed the value of excess gold jewellery found during a search as concealed income, as the source of investment was not satisfactorily explained by the assessee. The CIT(A) noted that the proceedings of the Deputy Collector of Central Excise & Customs were set aside and remanded for de novo consideration. The CIT(A) concluded that the excess stock was already recorded in the books before the end of the previous year, and thus, Section 69A did not apply.2. Evaluation of the Explanation Provided by the Assessee Regarding the Excess Stock of GoldThe CIT(A) meticulously examined individual items of gold and the corresponding entries in various registers. For instance, gold received from Shri Gangaram Maganlal Soni and Shri Mahavir Vasant Jain was supported by vouchers and statements, which the CIT(A) found credible. Similarly, transactions involving Shri Babulalji Soni, Shri Arun Shivram Kaigaonkar, and Smt. Rupa Sodha were also validated based on corroborative evidence and statements. The CIT(A) observed that the entire stock of gold ornaments was recorded in the books or registers, and the discrepancies noted by the Gold Control authorities were due to procedural irregularities rather than unaccounted stock.3. Applicability of Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961The CIT(A) pointed out that each gram of gold was duly recorded in the primary register or regular books of account. The assessee had provided a satisfactory explanation supported by corroborative statements from artisans, employees, and third persons. The infirmities noted by the Central Excise authorities did not hold evidential value for disbelieving the source and acquisition of the bullion. Consequently, the CIT(A) concluded that the addition under Section 69A was not justified.4. Relevance of Judgments in Similar CasesThe departmental representative cited the Supreme Court's judgment in Chuharmal v. CIT, where the onus of proving non-ownership of seized items was on the person found in possession. However, the CIT(A) distinguished this case, noting that the assessee had provided a satisfactory explanation for the gold found during the search. The Tribunal's decision in the case of J. B. Jewellers was also referenced, where the explanation for excess gold was accepted despite shortcomings. The Tribunal in the present case upheld the CIT(A)'s conclusion, emphasizing that the assessee had discharged the onus of proving the source and acquisition of the gold.Conclusion:The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, rejecting the revenue's appeal. The CIT(A) had provided a detailed and reasoned analysis, concluding that the addition of Rs. 45,454 under Section 69A was not justified. The assessee had satisfactorily explained the source and acquisition of the gold, supported by corroborative evidence, and the procedural irregularities noted by the Central Excise authorities did not warrant the addition. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.