The Commissioner Of Income Tax,Trichy v. Shri P.pawan Kumar Jain

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 06.02.2017 Coram: The Hon'ble Mr.Justice HULUVADI G.RAMESHANDThe Hon'ble Dr.Justice ANITA SUMANTH The Commissioner of Income Tax,Trichy. ... Appellant/Appellant Versus Shri P.Pawan Kumar Jain,No.8/3, 105, Pammalcort,Apartments,1[st] floor, Raja Annamalai Street,Purasavakkam,Chennai – 600 084. ... Respondent/Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260-A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal Madras “A” Bench dated 9[th] December, 2015, passed inITA No.672/Mds/2015, against the Order of the Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Appeals)-2(i/c), Tiruchirapalli, dated 18.12.2014made in ITA.No.16/13-14/(IT(A)/TRY, against the JointCommissioner of Income Tax, Kumbakonam Range, Kumbakonam,dated 14.03.2013 made in P.A.No./P-9000/AFUPJ4906P; AssessmentYear 2007-2008. For Respondent : Mr.Raghul Balaji JUDGMENT The assessee respondent is engaged in the manufacture andsale of jewellery. There was a survey in the premises of theassessee on 22.3.2007, in the course of which, gold and cashwere found. The department sought the assistance of a valuerSri.H.Gopaldas & Company, Kumbakonam, to value the gold and todetermine the purity thereof. The valuer determined thequantum at 10689.584 grams and the valuation to be in therange of Rs.230/- to 635/- per gram. In carrying out thisexercise, the modus operandi adopted by the valuer was tocategorise the gold into four lots based on the articles andthen value the same based on the purity of the gold.https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The assessing authority while accepting the quantum ofthe gold at 10689.584 grams, valued the same at Rs.955/- pergram. The adoption of the rate was as per a statementrecorded from the assessee on 5.4.2007, in the course ofsurvey. However, no other material was brought on record bythe department to substantiate the valuation of Rs.955/- pergram as against the valuation arrived at by the valuerappointed by it. The assessment was completed on this basis. 3. An appeal was filed by the assessee before theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who, after a detailedexamination of the matter confirmed the quantum of gold, butadopted a uniform rate of Rs.635/- being the highest numberadopted by the valuer in respect of all four lots of gold. Hethus quantified the unexplained investment at a figure ofRs.29,39,836/- as against Rs.1,02,80,052/- arrived at by theassessing authority. 4. An appeal was filed by the department before theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short 'Tribunal') beforewhich, the assessee also filed a cross objection. 5. The Tribunal finds as fact that the quantum of gold aswell as the valuation by the departmental valuer is proper.The valuation report by the valuer appointed by the Tribunalwas perused by the Tribunal which notes the categorization ofthe gold into four lots and the range adopted for valuationbetween Rs.255/- per gram to Rs.635/- per gram. In the lightof the valuation arrived at by the valuer, the statement ofthe assessee offering any other value does not carry anyrelevance. In fact, the assessing officer has accepted thevaluation of Sri.H.Gopaldas & Company, Kumbakonam, in part inregard to the quantum of gold. Having done so, there is, infact no basis for rejecting the valuation arrived at by thevaluer. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has examinedthe matter in detail adopting the highest figure of valuationfor the entire gold. The Tribunal, the final fact findingauthority, rightly confirms the aforesaid order upholdingthe said valuation. 6. The question raised by the Department before us nowin appeal under section 260A of the Act is the following : 6. The question raised by the Department before us nowin appeal under section 260A of the Act is the following : 'Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case the tribunal was rightin holding that unexplained investment undersection 68/69 with respect to stock of jewelleryfound during the survey had to be adopted atRs.29,33,836/- as against the figure of Rs.1.02 Crarrived by the Assessing Officer without properlyappreciating the valuers report.' 7. In view of the discussion above, we are of the viewhttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/that no substantial question of law arises in the matter. The findings recorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) as confirmed by the Tribunal are proper and warrantno interference. The departmental appeal is dismissed. Nocosts. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VIII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrarmsr To1.The Commissioner of Income Tax, Trichy.2.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Chennai.3.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), 2(i/c), Trichy.4.The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Kumbakonam Range, Kumbakonam.+1cc to Mr.J.Narayanaswamy, Advocate, S.R.No.7959+1cc to M/s.G.R.Associates, Advocate, S.R.No.7251 TAX CASE APPEAL No.810 of 2016CA(CO)CA(10/10/2017)