AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (11) TMI 649
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6-97, when the alleged excess gold jewellery of 16.428 kgs seized by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence of the Income-tax Department on January 30, 1997 were returned to the petitioner only on March 17, 1998? (2) Whether the Appellate Tribunal being a final fact-finding authority is correct in sustaining the levy of tax on the alleged sales turnover of gold jewellery when the fact remains that the alleged excess stock seized on January 30, 1997 was returned to the petitioner only on March 17, 1998 and so the petitioner would not have effected sales out of the alleged excess stock during the assessment year 1996-97 itself? (3) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in sustaining the levy of purchase tax under section 7A on the gold....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... In view of the said record, the officials of the revenue intelligence searched the premises of Deeveesha Ornaments and Shanthilal Jewellers and in the enquiry, the mandate holder of Shanthilal Jewellers deposed that he used to supply gold jewellery to the assessee. However the proprietor of Deeveesha Ornaments deposed that he had not given any jewellery to the assessee on approval basis but he gave only accommodation vouchers so as to make the documents appear as if jewellery was handed over by the said jeweller on approval basis. The Income-tax Department found that the assessee was dealing in gold, without accounting the same and ultimately the dealers themselves disclosed the undisclosed income as Rs. 26,34,015 representing the value of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the same was also shown in the accounts for the assessment year 1997-98 and tax was also paid accordingly and as such the very basis for determining the sales turnover treating it as sales suppression by the assessing officer was unjustified. The assessee also attempted to explain the possession of 16.428 kgs. of gold jewellery as according to the assessee the same was handed over only by the dealers of Nellore by way of approval. The case of the assessee with regard to the receipt of the gold jewellery on March 17, 1998 as well as the accounting of those jewellery during the year 1997-98 were considered by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and taking into account, the fact that the jewellery was returned only on March 17, 1998 and as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d observed that in the absence of any documentary evidence, the finding of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to the effect that proportionate purchase was made from Shanthilal Jewellers of Nellore was perverse. Accordingly, the Tribunal restored the order of assessment as made by the assessing officer, including levy of penalty. Aggrieved by the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, the assessee has filed the present tax case. It is found from the materials available on record as well as additional papers submitted by the learned counsel for the assessee that the gold in question was returned to the assessee only on March 17, 1998. There is a reference about the factum of such return in the assessment order. Even in the objection ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty. The said fact is also found from the grounds of appeal filed by the Department before the Tribunal wherein they have clearly admitted about the receipt of the jewellery on March 17, 1998. In such circumstances, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal was not justified in setting aside the finding with regard to suppression of turnover. Accordingly, the substantial questions of law Nos. 1 and 2 are decided in favour of the assessee and against the Department. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner though found that no evidence was produced by the assessee to prove that the jewellery was received by them on approval basis, still reduced the purchase omission by 50 per cent and the said finding has absolutely no factual basis. The s....