TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (7) TMI 364
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Coordinate Bench of this Court has admitted the appeal on the following substantial questions of law:- (i) Whether on the fact and circumstances of the case Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained investment in diamond jewellery when the anomaly between the item wise tally of diamonds so found at the time of survey/search operation and that declared under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997, remained unexplained. (ii) Whether on the fact and circumstances of the case Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the surcharge levied under section 113 of the Act by holding that the insertion of proviso to Section 113 of the I.T.Act....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eclared in the earlier year and also included a purchase from Surat. The assessee had produced a receipt from M/s Aashi Diamond, Surat and also a voucher book with 7 vouchers filled up, showing receipt of diamonds from family members and the partners of the assessee and its transferred from M/s Trubhuwan Dass Bhim Ji Zavery of Pune for being set in gold. The gold sent by Javery Brothers, was entered in the stock register. The A.O. stated that explanation given by the assessee was not convincing. Learned counsel further submits that the diamonds allegedly received from family members were neither entered in the stock register nor shown in the stock register on its return from Javery Brother as incoming stock of the firm. Therefore, diamon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessee and also vouchers received from Tribhuwan Dass Bhim Ji Zavery, diamond weight was given in ct. and no number of pieces were indicated. Similarly, in case of purchase of diamond from M/s. Asshi Diamond of 100.25 ct., number of pieces of diamond are not stated. Considering the issue before us in the light of the above facts, we are of the considered view that the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly held that diamond jewellery weighing 427.29 cts. Studded with gold is the same jewellery which was received by the assessee from its partners and family members and said jewellery was declared by them under VDIS, 1997 besides declaration of 78 cts. By Sri Ramesh Chandra Gupta in his wealth tax return before the date of search." Further, learned....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gh the material available on record including the written submissions, it is an undisputed fact that the partners and family members have enjoyed the immunity by filing the declaration under VDIS, 1997. The partners and family members had given the jewellery to the assessee firm only for exhibition. The assessee firm, soon after receiving the jewellery had issued the vouchers. It is pertinent to mention that in the exhibition, no jewellery was put for sale, it was only to display. If any customer likes, he may place the order and the similar jewellery can be prepared. Thus, on the counter, there was no sale. The vouchers were seized during the course of search, so the genuineness of the vouchers can not be questioned. The Tribunal in its....