TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (9) TMI 47
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a) Whether the Tribunal was correct, in law and fact of the case, in setting aside Annexure C order of the CIT (Appeals)-I, Kochi and restoring the addition made by the assessing officer to the tune of Rs. 63,64,123/- (the value of the gold ornaments requisitioned) in the hands of the appellant for the AY 2007-08? b) Having accepted that the appellant is an employee/traveling sales man of M/s Prakash Gold Palace Pvt. Ltd., Chennai; Was the Tribunal correct, in law and fact of the case, in upholding the finding of the assessing officer that the gold jewellery found in possession of the appellant did not belong to the Company M/s Prakash Gold Palace Pvt. Ltd., Chennai and therefore to assess the value of the Gold of Rs. 63,64,123/- in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iscussed during the hearing before the Tribunal and thereby taking a decision without affording the opportunity of being heard on the above? g) Whether the Tribunal was right in law and facts of the case in holding that the presumption u/s 132 (4A) of the Income Tax Act is not applicable in the present case. 2. On 24.7.2006, the Sub Inspector of Police, Hill Palace, Thripunithura apprehended the assessee and recovered gold ornaments weighing 7191.700 gms. The recovery was reported to the Income Tax Department which requisitioned the gold under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act. On that basis assessment proceedings were initiated against the assessee. By Annexure-A assessment order, Rs. 63,64,123/- being the value of the gold recovered wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....168 of 2008 which was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court by its judgment of 25th January 2008 directing that the employer shall deposit a sum of Rs. 24 lakhs with the Income Tax Department and that if such deposit is made, the gold shall be released either in favour of the employer or in favour of the assessee. Judgment further shows that liberty was reserved to the department to recover any amount that may be found due after completing assessment proceedings against either the employer or the assessee. It is, therefore, contended that the assessee having disclosed to the police and to the Income Tax Department at the earliest possible opportunity that the ownership of the recovered gold is that of his employer M/s Prakash Gold ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....financial year. Reading of this provision shows that the burden is cast entirely upon the assessee to explain about the nature and source of acquisition of the jewellery and if the assessing officer forms an opinion that the explanation offered is not satisfactory, he may deem it to be the income of the assessee. This provision has been construed by the Apex Court in the judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax, Salem v K.Chinnathamban (supra), where it inter alia has been held that in order to find out whether the assessee is the owner of any money in terms of Section 69A of the Act, the principle of common law jurisprudence in section 110 of the Evidence Act, 1872 can be applied. Section 110 of the Evidence Act provides that when the questi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ehended by the police. d. As per the Stock Register and transfer voucher dated 19.7.2006, produced by Shri.Chakraborthy the gold ornaments weighing 5584.550 gms. reached Chennai office after 19.7.2006, the date of the transfer voucher, stated to be prepared at Kolkota. But according to the statement of the assessee he reached Kochi from Chennai with gold ornaments on 18.7.2006. e. As per the transfer documents subsequently produced, the quantity of gold ornaments transferred to Kochi was 7432.880 gms. The quantity of gold ornaments seized was only 7191.700 gms. The assessee or the officials of M/s. Prakash Gold Palace (P) Ltd. could not explain the whereabouts or absence of the balance quantity of 241.180 gms. of gold. 9. Thereafter th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of survey u/s 133A on 25.7.2006 at the Kochi Branch Office at Poothullil House, 2nd Floor, Monastry Road, Cochin 11. It is pertinent to note that Shri.Karun Dutt Singh himself was present at Kochi Branch office at the time of Survey. So, the production of the Stock Register before the ADI(Inv)-I is an after thought. * In his letter dated 21.9.2007, the assessee also requested to assess the value of this jewellery as belongs to M/s Prakash Gold Palace (P) Ltd. U/s 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. But Shri.Karun Dutt Singh as well as the company M/s Prakash Gold Palace (P) Ltd. failed to establish that the seized gold ornaments belonged to the company. Merely furnishing of an affidavit from M/s Prakash Gold Palace (P) Ltd. is not sufficien....