TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (6) TMI 1145
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ule 45 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. "1) Your assessee was carrying the 18,043.960 gms. Gold Bars and 1765.450 gms Gold Ornaments for manufacturing and repolishing job respectively on behalf of M/s Chakarbaorty Jewellers, in which he is a partner. 2) The entire gold bars and ornaments were handed over by M/s B.B Jewellers and Manufacturers for manufacturing of ornaments and repolishing of ornaments respectively, Your assessee has long business relation with M/s B.B Jewellers and Manufacturers and it is very common practice to carry the gold from Chennai to Kolkata for the manufacturing or repairing purpose. 3) During the scrutiny procedure the representative of M/s B.B Jewellers and Manufacturers clearly stated that they have handed over....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A. C.I.T objected on the point that search action took place on 30.06.20 16 but the receipt date on the bill was mentioned as 04.07.2016 and raised query about the matter. It was clarified that the gold was purchased by M/s Mohanlal Jewellers on 30.06.2016 and the same was delivered by the Sequel Logistics on the same day and bill was received by them on 04.07.2016. The Ld A.C.I.T mentioned that in the order 10) On the basis of the above fact it is clear that the onus of the said gold bars and ornaments does not fall on the assessee 11) The Ld A.C.I.T objected regarding the not mentioning of identification no. of g old bullions in the bill but it was clearly stated by all the parties that it is common practice to not mentioning the identifi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing brought from Chennai to Kolkata for manufacturing of ornaments and for polishing of some of the ornaments. He submitted that the initial statement given by the assessee was collaborated by each of the parties who had given this gold and jewellery to the assessee for manufacturing of jewellery or for re-polishing of jewellery etc. He submitted that notices u/s 131 of the Act were issued by the Department to each of the parties and in response each of these parties had confirmed the statement given by the assessee. He submitted that the AO had no adverse material whatsoever in his possession to disprove the claim/explanation of the assessee. He argued that only because identification numbers of gold and jewellery were not mentioned in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....supported and proved by the independent verification done by the Investigation Wing with the third party Jewellers in Chennai. Lack of distinctive identification numbers of the gold bullion on the challans seized, along with the gold from the assessee, was the grounds on which the AO made the addition. In our view, the ld. CIT(A) has rightly stated that this cannot be a basis of making this addition. The ld. CIT(A) at page-4 to 6 held as follows: "The AO has pointed out lack of mention of distinctive Nos. in gold bullion. Omission of the said No. from various or some connected documents in the records of the relevant parties forming the asset movement has been discussed at length in the asstt. Order. I get the impression that this part of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the content of the document seized has to be presumed correct. Further, the said section 292C or 132(4A) only raises the legal presumption, which is open to rebuttal in the facts and circumstances of a case. In the present case, the AO has not disproved the appellant's claim (right from the beginning till end of the proceedings with the AO) that the seized asset belonged to B.B. Jewellers, and subsequent enquiries conducted by various officers has supported the appellant's case that the assets belong to B.B. Jewellers. In view of the above, the challan and the AO's failure to collect any material against the appellant, the above presumption of law as to the appellant's treatment as owner of the asset completely falls. Mo....