TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (8) TMI 83
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....umstances of the case. 2 The appellant denies to be assessed at Rs. 5,97,330/-/-against the declared total income of Rs. 84,070/- on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3 The learned CIT (A) is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 5,00,050/- under section 68 of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4 The learned CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the finding of the AO that the nomenclature as per the declaration differed from the sale invoice and hence the said sale was out of diamonds different from the one in the declaration made on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5.The learned CIT(A) was not justified in relying on the observations made in the earlier appellate orders to arrive at a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fresh decision. He has drawn our attention to para-10 of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court and pointed out that this is the direction of the Hon'ble High Court that if the assessee is able to prove that the goods that are sold under the transactions declared in the regular return are the same goods which were declared in the application filed under the VDIS Scheme 1997 and accepted by the revenue then the question of taxing the transactions declared in the regular returns u/s 68 of the IT Act would not arise and tax has to be imposed u/s 45 of the IT Act, 1961. He submitted that in the present proceedings, the AO and the ld. CIT(A) has repeated the same addition and therefore, the addition made by the lower authorities is not justified....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the IT Act, 1961 in the present year. Hence in the light of the direction of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, I examine the facts of the present case. As per the valuation report submitted by the ld. AR being copy submitted with the declaration under VDIS 1997 as available on page-2 of the paper book, the assessee has made declaration of diamonds as under; Sl.No Carats Pieces Amount 1. 1.20 3 48,000 2. 1.35 1 33,750 3. 3.25 3 58,500 4. 15.3 12 99,750 Total........... 2,40,000 7. As per the confirmation of the buyer M/s S. Babulal & Co., Ahmedabad, he has purchased from the assessee cut and polished Diamonds of 18.55 carat for Rs. 5,00,050/-. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee is not applicable in the present case. As per the second judgment cited by the ld. AR of the assessee rendered in the case of Smt. Umabai M.Kothari (Supra), I find that in that case, there was no sale of Diamond and there was only sale of Gold and Silver, whereas in the present case, the dispute is regarding sale of Diamond and I have seen that the assessee could not establish this fact that the Diamond sold in the present case is the same Diamond which was declared by the assessee under VDIS declaration 1997 because the assessee could not show that the size, colour and cut of the Diamond sold in the present year and Diamond declared under the VDIS declaration are the same and without that, it cannot be accepted that the Diamond in....