| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2010 SLG 1965 2010 SLD 1965 (2010) 320 ITR 554 (2009) 182 TAXMAN 243 |
Bombay High Court
INCOME-TAX APPEAL No. 634 OF 2009, JULY 2, 2009
V.C. DAGA AND, J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
S.K. Bhatnagar, Ms. Suchitra Kamble and N.R. Prajapati for the Appellant. S.G. Lakhani for the
Respondent.
INCOME-TAX APPEAL No. 634 OF 2009, JULY 2, 2009
V.C. DAGA AND, J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
S.K. Bhatnagar, Ms. Suchitra Kamble and N.R. Prajapati for the Appellant. S.G. Lakhani for the
Respondent.
Commissioner of Income Tax -21, Mumbai
v.
Uttamchand Jain
Law:
Section:
Section 143 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Assessment - Additions to income - Assessment year 1999-2000 - Assessee, a dealer in diamonds, had declared certain diamond jewellery under Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997 - Said declaration was accepted by department and a certificate was issued to assessee - In his return of income for relevant assessment year, assessee claimed to have sold said jewellery to one T on 20-1-1999 for certain consideration - Return was processed under section 143(1)(a), but later, on basis of statement of T recorded during course of survey conducted upon him wherein he had stated that he was not actually doing business of trading and manufacture of diamonds and transactions reflected in his books of account were merely accommodation entries given to various VDIS declarants, Assessing Officer reopened assessment and made addition of entire sale amount as undisclosed income of assessee - On appeal, Tribunal, relying upon retracted statement made by T, deleted impugned addition - Whether since existence of diamond jewellery with assessee prior to sale was evidenced by VDIS, 1997 certificate and on sale of said jewellery assessee had received consideration which was duly accounted for, mere fact that jewellery sold by assessee was not found with purchaser 'T' could be a ground to hold that transaction was bogus and consideration received by assessee was his undisclosed income - Held, no - Whether, therefore, impugned addition had rightly been deleted by Tribunal - Held, yes FACTS The assessee, a dealer in diamonds, had declared certain diamond jewellery under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997 (VDIS, 1997). The said declaration was accepted by the department and a certificate was issued to the assessee under the VDIS, 1997. In the return of income filed for the relevant assessment year, the assessee claimed to have sold the said jewellery declared to one T for certain consideration. The return was processed under section 143(1)(a). Subsequently, a survey was conducted upon T on 30-3-2000, during which T made statement that he was not doing actual business of trading and manufacturing of diamonds; and that the…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492