Senco Jewellery House and Anr. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-39, Kol & Anr
[Citation -2015-LL-0204-18]

Citation 2015-LL-0204-18
Appellant Name Senco Jewellery House and Anr.
Respondent Name Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-39, Kol & Anr.
Court HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 04/02/2015
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags tds certificate
Bot Summary: These karigors not only work for the assessee but also work for other jewellers. The CIT(A) deleted the addition only on this basis but did not give any opportunity to the AO to verify whether the ornaments belonged to these karigors whereas the gold ornaments were found in the possession of the assessee and the assessee takes the plea that the gold ornaments belonged to the other party. The onus is on the assessee to prove that these ornaments belonged to the other party. The TDS certificate in fact relates to labour charges paid to the karigors and does not prove that the ornaments do not belong to the assessee. The CIT(A) just deleted the addition without verifying the facts on record as well as giving opportunity to the AO so that each of the karigor could have been cross-examined. There must be evidence to prove that the karigors have given the gold ornaments to the assessee in the shape of challans, goods received from the karigors. Generally the gold is given to the karigors for making the ornaments and under these facts, the gold found could have been less not in excess.


GA No.3748 of 2014 ITAT No.195 of 2014 IN HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income Tax) ORIGINAL SIDE SENCO JEWELLERY HOUSE & ANR. -Versus- ASTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-39, KOL & ANR BEFORE: Hon'ble JUSTICE GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA Date : 4th February, 2015. Appearance: Mr. R.N. Dutta, Adv. Mr. Saikat Ghosal, Adv. ...for appellant. Mr. Ranjan Sinha, Adv. Mr. S.B. Saraf, Adv. ...for respondent. Court : subject-matter of challenge in this appeal is judgment and order dated 25th July, 2014 passed by learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Aggrieved by order, assessee has come up in appeal. Mr. Dutta drew our attention to paragraph 3 of judgment under challenge which reads as follows: 3. We heard rival submissions and carefully considered same. We have also gone through page nos.35 to 39, which consists of list 2 of karigors along with their names, addresses and their permanent account numbers. This proves that each of karigors is being assessed to income-tax and they are filing their income-tax returns. These karigors not only work for assessee but also work for other jewellers. CIT(A) deleted addition only on this basis but did not give any opportunity to AO to verify whether ornaments belonged to these karigors whereas gold ornaments were found in possession of assessee and assessee takes plea that gold ornaments belonged to other party. onus is on assessee to prove that these ornaments belonged to other party. We noted that assessee has simply filed list of karigors along with their names, addresses and PA numbers as well as TDS certificate. TDS certificate in fact relates to labour charges paid to karigors and does not prove that ornaments do not belong to assessee. Even in case of Parimal Chandra Roy, Biswajit Guchait, Shri Shantanu Roy and Shri Sukumar Halder, their respective PA numbers have not been filed. CIT(A) just deleted addition without verifying facts on record as well as giving opportunity to AO so that each of karigor could have been cross-examined. There must be evidence to prove that karigors have given gold ornaments to assessee in shape of challans, goods received from karigors. Generally gold is given to karigors for making ornaments and under these facts, gold found could have been less not in excess. We, therefore, set aside order of CIT(A) and restore order of AO. Hence, ground no.1 of Revenue s appeal stands allowed. 3 He submitted that Tribunal felt that some more investigation into facts of case were required. Tribunal should have remanded matter rather than straightaway proceeding to set aside order of CIT (Appeal) and to restore order of assessing officer. We have heard matter earlier on 19th January, 2015. That day learned advocate for revenue was not present. Today, Mr. Sinha had appeared for revenue and submitted that he has no objection to remand for that limited question. Accordingly, order of learned Tribunal setting aside order of CIT (Appeal) deleting addition of sum of Rs.1,20,07,968/- is set aside and matter is remanded to assessing officer. He shall undertake enquiry to find out correctness of claims and contentions put forward by assessee including creditworthiness of Karigors. assessee shall be at liberty to adduce further evidence. appeal and application are thus disposed of. (GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA, J.) (ARINDAM SINHA, J.) A/s. Senco Jewellery House and Anr. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-39, Kol & Anr
Report Error