PAWAN JAUN,GUWAHATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ARD-4(2), GUWAHATI

At the outset, the Learned Counsel for the assessee has brought my attention to the impugned assessment order to show that the Learned Assessing Officer ( in short, the A.Y. 2015-16 Pawan Jain Page 2 Ld. AO) did not find any evidence regarding suppression of value of goods from the accounts of the assessee or otherwise. The basis on which the Ld. AO has made the impugned addition is that the Custom Authorities for the purpose of levy of custom duty have applied certain formula by way of which the value of the imported goods for the purpose of levy of custom duty has been adopted. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that as per the Custom Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007, the Custom Authorities have adopted certain formula on the basis of which the custom duty is levied. However, the applicability of said formula for determination of custom duty cannot be the basis to hold that the assessee has suppressed the actual purchase value of the imported goods.

The Learned Departmental Representative ( in short, the Ld. DR) could not show from the record that any other evidence was available with the Assessing Officer to arrive at a conclusion that the assessee had suppressed the purchase of value of imported goods. 5. I find merit in the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. Though there may be valuation adopted of the goods by the custom authorities for the purpose of levy of custom duty on the basis of certain formula as per prescribed Rules, however, the Ld. AO has not brought anything/ material on record that the assessee had suppressed the purchase value of the imported goods Therefore, there was no justification on the part of the Ld. AO to make the impugned addition. Accordingly, the same is ordered to be deleted.