TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (9) TMI 526
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g to this appeal are as follows : 3. The assessee had filed return of income on October 10, 1998, declaring total income of Rs. 92,950. The same was selected for scrutiny with prior approval of the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Range I, Hubli. The assessee had shown capital loss on sale of diamond amounting to Rs.1,038 and a perusal of personal capital accounts revealed that there is accretion of Rs. 8,29,330 on account of sale of gold jewellery and diamond. Notices under section 143(2)(i) were issued on September 30, 1999, informing the assessee to appear on October 14, 1999 with the books of account, bills, vouchers and details of assets acquired. The assessee appeared through Sri R. H. Agarwal, a chartered accountant and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der section 68 and deduction was given to the amount that was declared under the declaration filed under the Scheme, 1997, towards gold jewellery and diamond. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the assessing authority, an appeal was filed before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Hubli, by the assessee. 4. In the said appeal the order passed by the assessing authority was confirmed, however, it was ordered that the Assessing Officer will treat the entire amount of Rs. 8,29,330 as the income of the appellant therein. Being aggrieved by the said order dated March 27, 2003, an appeal was preferred before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal by order dated December 19, 2003, confirmed the order passed by the Commissi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oes not arise. Therefore, he submits that the finding of the Tribunal confirming the order of the first appellate authority who in turn had confirmed the order passed by the assessing authority is liable to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent Revenue submitted that what was declared in the application filed under the Scheme, 1997, was gold jewellery and diamond for the value of Rs.3,51,213 and as per the regular returns, the amount that is shown by way of sale is Rs. 4,08,080 in respect of gold jewellery and Rs. 4,04,215 in respect of the diamond and wherefore, having regard to the amount which is shown in the regular returns and the amount that was shown in the declaration made under the Scheme, 1997....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessee are the same goods which had been declared under the application filed under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997, which was accepted by the Revenue ? (2) What order ?" 9. We answer the above substantial questions of law as follows : (1) In the affirmative. (2) As per the final order for the following reasons. 10. Point Nos. 1 and 2 : We have been taken through the application filed by the assessee under the Scheme, 1997, as also the certificate issued by the revenue accepting the said application. We have also been taken through the order passed by the assessing authority, first appellate authority and the Tribunal as also the report of valuation of jewellery and ornaments filed along with the application fil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s is the gold jewellery and diamond that was the subject-matter of application filed under the Scheme, 1997, and cannot be taxed under section 68 has to be accepted. However, if the assessee is not able to prove that the subject-matter of transaction declared in the regular returns is the same goods which is declared under the application filed under the Scheme, 1997, and accepted by the Revenue, then it is clear that the assessee is bound to pay tax on the sale transactions, as what is sold is not the property which is the subject-matter of application under the Scheme, 1997. This proposition cannot be disputed by the counsel for the parties. When the finding given by the assessing authority, which is confirmed by the first appellate autho....