TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (1) TMI 531
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elry. The history of the case goes like this that there is a person namely Shri Suresh Kumar, an employee of "Jay Mata Di Air Services" who came to Rajkot airport to collect the parcel/delivery which came through Jet Airways. On being intercepted by the Air Surveillance Unit dated 27-10-2017, it was discovered that Shri Suresh Kumar has taken the delivery for the gold which was to be delivered to different parties. But Shri Suresh Kumar failed to furnish the necessary details about the parties with respect to the ownership of the gold. Thereafter, the enquiry was consequently converted into the search under section 132 of the Act on Shri Suresh Kumar and subsequently, the gold was seized. 4. The search team during the course of post search proceedings found that one of the parcel bearing No. J-31 containing 949.18 grams of fine gold was sent by M/s Brij Mohan Jewellers for the purpose of the job work to the assessee, proprietor M/s J Ali & Sons. Based on such information, the proceedings under section 153C of the Act were initiated against the assessee. 5. The assessee in the proceedings initiated under section 153C of the Act contended that he has purchased the gold from the par....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the interest of revenue made protective addition of Rs. 29,01,486/- in the hand of the assessee being value of seized gold weighing 949.18 grams. 9. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to learned CIT-A. 9.1 The assessee before the learned CIT-A reiterated that the impugned gold was purchased by him from M/s Brij Mohan Jewellers of Hyderabad and same is duly accounted and supported by the documentary evidences. However, the AO only in the absence of form 402/430 of GST disbelieved the documentary evidence furnished and made addition under section 69A of the Act on protective basis. 9.2 The learned CIT-A after considering the facts in totality deleted the protective addition made by the AO by observing as under: "5.3.3 From the assessment order passed in the case Shri Sandeep Gupta, Prop. of M/s. Brij Mohan Jewellers, Hyderabad for Asst. Year 2018-19, it is seen that the Assessing Officer has categorically given the finding that the Fine Gold weighing 949.18 grams sent to the appellant actually belongs to Shri Sandeep Gupta, Prop. of M/s. Brij Mohan Jewellers, Hyderabad. Therefore, as the amount fo Gold seized has already been added in the hands of sender on substantive ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the parcel booking records suggest that in Hyderabad, the date of booking was 24.10.2017 and the date of dispatch from Hyderabad to Rajkot on 25.10.2017. As such, the seized gold In Rajkot is different from the gold which has been purchased and received by Shri Jaliluddin J. All Shekh, proprietor of J.Ali& Sons (pg.53, para.iii). (6) That the Assessing Officer had made additions in the hands of the assesses on protective basis (pg.115 of the paper book and para.6 of the assessment order). (7) That the Ld.CIT(A), upon consideration that the department has made substantive additions in the hands of Hyderabad based seller M/s.Brij Mohan Jewellers, on thesame item, has deleted the protective assessment (pg.8 of the paper book para.5.3,3). (8) That as such the assessee has no point of grievance against the department. As per facts available on record, he purchased gold on 26.10.2017 and received possession of such gold on the same date. He has presented bill dated 26.10.2017 before Income tax authorities. He has presented no evidence to suggest that the parcel, which was booked on 24.10.2017 and couriered on 25.10.2017 contained gold purchased by him on 26.10.2017, which was als....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the hands of Shri Sandeep Gupta the proprietor of M/s Brij Mohan Jewellers by treating the impugned gold belonging to him. Therefore, the learned CIT (A) was pleased to delete the protective addition made by the AO in the hand of the assessee. 14.1 The controversy before us relates whether the impugned gold seized by the Revenue belongs to the assessee and sent to assessee on account of purchases or for job work. Admittedly, the assessee in support of the genuineness of purchases has furnished the details as mentioned having below: "...Appellant also enclosing here with following supporting in this regard for your ready reference. M/s BrijJewellers Prop. Sandeep Gupta a) Copy of purchase invoice GST/189. b) Copy of ledger of M/s BrijJewellers for the F.Y. 2017-18 reflecting the transaction of Rs. 29,01,486/- c) Copy of GSTR-1 of brij jewelers reflecting the purchases of Rs. 29,01,486/- d) Copy of our stock register reflecting stock of Rs. 949.180/- e) Copy of stock register of brij jewelers. f) Copy of assessment order in case of brij jewelers wherein addition of Rs. 29,01,486/- is made. g) Copy of our bank statement reflecting part payment of Rs. 15,16,000/- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e been furnished by the assessee during the proceedings before the respective authorities as elaborated in the preceding paragraph. With respect to the same, no iota of doubt was raised by the revenue. In fact, the assessee has shown payments against the purchases which were duly recorded in the books of accounts and reported in GST return by both the parties' i.e assessee and seller M/s Brij Mohan Jewellers. In the absence of any infirmity in all these details, it seems to us that the assessee is being faced certain difficulties. On one hand, the assessee has made the payment against the purchases but failed to take the delivery of the gold which was purchased by him. 15. At this juncture, it is also important to note that the persons namely Shri Suresh Kumar representing the courier agency "Jay Mata Di Air Services", has submitted that the impugned gold was to be delivered to the assessee. This fact can be verified from the order disposing of objection raised in the proceedings under section 153C of the Act. The relevant finding of the AO stands as under: "3. As per the statement given by Sh. Suresh/jagdish the parcel no. J-31 has to be delivered to you. Therefore, as per the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cant that he had purchased the gold in question from M/s. ParvKundan and Diamonds Private Limited and had also accounted for the same in his books of account. In such circumstances, the Revenue cannot withhold the seized gold jewellary weighing 524.500 grams. It has got to be released in favour of the writ applicant. 16. From the above, it is transpired that one of the party being Seller has denied to have made sales to the assessee whereas in the case on hand both the buyer and the seller have admitted to have carried out the transaction of purchase and sales. Thus, what appears is this that the case on hand is stronger than the case cited above. It is for the reason that the transaction on hand for the purchase and sale is duly supported based on the documentary evidence which have not been disputed or doubted by the authorities below. 17. It is the settled law for the additions made under the provisions of section 69A of the Act, the onus lies upon the Revenue to establish that the assessee is found owner of money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article which is not recorded in the books of accounts. Further, the assessee failed to offer an explanation about the nature a....