Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, engaged in manufacturing jewellery on job work basis, filed its return of income. Following a search by CGST authorities where jewellery valued at over Rs. 9.85 crores was found, reassessment proceedings were initiated based on information from REIC and a statement recorded during the search. The Assessing Officer made additions for alleged unaccounted job work charges and upheld the valuation of the jewellery.
Held
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were valid as the Assessing Officer had 'reason to believe' income had escaped assessment, based on tangible material collected during the GST search, and the assessee failed to substantiate claims of coercion or undue pressure regarding the retracted statement. The Tribunal also found the additions on account of job work charges and the valuation of jewellery to be reasonable and substantiated by the revenue authorities.
Key Issues
Validity of reassessment proceedings based on third-party information and retracted statement; addition of job work charges based on an assumed rate; and confirmation of jewellery valuation without independent verification.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 145
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT
Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER to 955/SRT/2024 (Assessment Year: 2016-17 to 2018-19) Palak Designer Diamond Jewellary Ld. Assessing Officer, Vs. 6/1704-5-6, Gundi Sheri, NFAC, Ratanjiparekh no Khancho, Delhi Mahidhapura, Surat-395003 [PAN : AALFP 3491 R] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant represented by : Shri Biren Shah, AR Respondent represented by: Shri Mukesh Jain, CIT (DR) & Shri Ajay Uke, Sr DR Date of Hearing 20.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 23.02.2026 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:-
These three appeals have been filed by the assessee against separate orders passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [herein-after referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”], dated 22.07.2024 for AY 2016-17 and 2017-18 and dated 30.07.2024 for AY 2018- 19, under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).
2. Since the issues involved in all the three appeals are identical and the grounds are verbatim the same except variation in figures, they were heard together and are disposed of by this consolidated order. to 955/SRT/2024 Palak Designer Diamond Jewellery Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2016-17 to 2018-19 - 2– “1. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the impugned assessment order passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi and deserves to be quashed.
In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the reassessment proceedings though the reasons recorded by assessing Officer based on which assessee's case is reopened itself is without verification of records, without application of mind and based on information received from third party without prior verification.
In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the validity of notice issued u/s 148 4. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the addition on account of job work charges as unexplained income of the appellant amounting to Rs. 39,42,558/-. 5. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the valuation of Jewellery at Rs. 9.85 crores which itself is incorrect and without any logic though it was duly challenged during the assessment as well as appellant proceedings. 6. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding in applying fixed assumed job work rate to the alleged jewellery valuation ignoring the fact that making charges / job work charges depends upon the quantity of Gold consumed and not its valuation. 7. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend and/or withdraw any ground or grounds of appeal either before or during the course of hearing of the appeal.”
4. The assessee firm is engaged in manufacturing gold and diamond jewellery on job work basis for principal manufacturers. It charges labour/making charges based on quantity of gold consumed and does not own the jewellery. For A.Y. 2016-17, the assessee filed return declaring income of Rs. 32,21,390/-. A search was conducted by CGST authorities, during which jewellery valued at Rs. 9,85,63,946/- was found at the premises. Statement of Shri Bharat Kumar Patel was recorded on 22.05.2018 alleging manufacture of additional jewellery not recorded in books. Based on information received from Regional Economic to 955/SRT/2024 Palak Designer Diamond Jewellery Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2016-17 to 2018-19 - 3– Intelligence Council (REIC), Surat, reopening was initiated u/s 147 and notice u/s 148 dated 31.03.2021 was issued. Thereafter, the assessment was completed determining income at Rs. 73,63,948/- by making addition of Rs. 39,42,558/- being 4% of Rs. 9,85,63,946/- as alleged unaccounted job work charges.
5. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
6. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal.
We have heard the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on record.
Ground Nos. 1, 2 & 3 – Validity of Reassessment u/s 147/148 of the Act
Through these grounds, the assessee has challenged the validity of the reassessment proceedings as well as the validity of notice issued u/s 148 of the Act.
8.1 The Ld. AR submitted that the reopening is solely based on third-party information received from GST authorities and there was no independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer. It was submitted that the reasons recorded merely reproduce the information received and do not demonstrate any verification of books of account or examination of the returned income. It was further contended that the statement of Shri Bharat Kumar Patel, which forms the basis of reopening, was retracted by way of affidavit dated 04.06.2018 and that he was not even a partner of the assessee firm. According to the assessee, there was no live nexus between the alleged jewellery valuation and escapement of income.
The assessee relied on the following case-laws:- to 955/SRT/2024 Palak Designer Diamond Jewellery Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2016-17 to 2018-19 - 4– i. Meenakshi Overseas (P.) Ltd. V. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax [2017] 82 taxmann.com 300, ii. Varshaben Sanatbhai Patel Vs. Income Tax Officer vide ITA No: 12873 of 2014 Dated 13/10/2015 (Gujarat High Court), iii. Sarthak Securities Co. (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, 195 TAXMAN 262 (Delhi High Court), iv. M/s Narendra Polychem(P) Ltd. in dated 03/06/2016, v. ACIT Vs. Devesh Kumar vide ITA No: 2068/Del/2010 dated 31/10/2014 (Delhi High Court)
8.2 The Ld. CIT(A), however, held that there was tangible material in the form of seized printouts and statement recorded during GST proceedings. The Ld. CIT(A) therefore upheld the validity of reassessment.
8.3 Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record. Reasons recorded for reopening of the assessee’s case are as under:-
“2. Brief details of information collected / received by the AO:-
In this case information has been received from the Regional Economic Intelligence Council (REIC), Surat. Along with information, a show cause notice dated 23-10-2015 issued to the Assessee by the Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax was also received. During the search of CGST Wing all in one computer was found and print outs retrieved from this computer. This printout containing details of additional jewellery articles manufactured by M/s Palak Designer Diamond Jewellery.
The Assessee has filed its return of income declaring income of Rs.34,21,390/- on 08.10.2016. In view of the above facts, it is crystal clear that the assessee has failed to offer cash receipt for the year under consideration. to 955/SRT/2024 Palak Designer Diamond Jewellery Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2016-17 to 2018-19 - 5– 3. Analysis of the information collected / received:-
On analysis of the information / documents, it is noticed from print out retrieved from all in one computer which was seized by panchnama dated 19/02/2018 that additional jewellery articles has been manufactured by M/s Palak Designer Diamond Jewellery. In his statement recorded on 22-05- 2018 by the Superintendent (Anti Evasion), GST & Excise, Surat Commissionrate during their search proceedings, Shri Bharat Kumar Patel, Partner of M/s Palak Designer Diamond Jewellery admitted that M/s Palak Designer Diamond Jewellery, Surat had manufactured additional jewellery during March 2016 amounting to Rs.9,85,63,946/- which was not disclosed in the books of account of the firm.”
8.4 It is a fact on record that Mr. Bharatbhai Patel has filed a retraction affidavit dated 04.06.2018, which is as under:- to 955/SRT/2024 Palak Designer Diamond Jewellery Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2016-17 to 2018-19 - 6– to 955/SRT/2024 Palak Designer Diamond Jewellery Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2016-17 to 2018-19 - 7– 8.5 We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has duly examined and considered all the relevant facts of the case and has rightly dismissed the ground raised by the assessee challenging the reopening of the assessment, by observing as under:-
“In this ground the appellant has challenged the issuing of notice u/s 148 of the Act on the ground that initiation of proceedings on the basis of REIC information is erroneous. In his submission dated 28.02.2024 the appellant has raised four issues which are discussed below: (I) The appellant submitted in his reply that the case was re-opened on the basis of the information regarding search of CGST Wing of the Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Department wherein a print out was seized vide Panchnama dated 19.02.2018 mentioning manufacturing of additional Jewellery articles and statement of Shri Bharat Kumar Patel that the firm had manufactured additional Jewellery of Rs. 9,85,63,946/- which was not disclosed in the books of account. The appellant submitted that Shri Bharat Bhai Patel retracted his affidavit dated 04.06.2018. The appellant submitted that the Assessing Officer has not made any Independent Inquiry or verification to reach the conclusion. The Assessing Officer referred to the following decisions of various Hon’ble High Courts on this issue: (i) Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Sfil Stock Broking Ltd. 325 ITR 285. (ii) Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Atul Jain. 299 ITR 383. (iii) Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd 248 CTR 33. I find that it has been stated by the appellant that Shri Bharat Bhai Patel (Bharat Kumar Patel) retracted his statement dated 22.05.2018 and filed a retraction affidavit on 04.06.2018. In the retraction affidavit it has been mentioned that the GST Officers gave him an printout of three page and got it signed by forcing him to sign the print out. The allegation has not been substantiated and there is no mention of any complaint filed by the Shri Bharat Kumar Patel before Higher Authorities of GST or in the Police department in this connection. In case of Bhimsen Darbarlal Arora vs. ACIT, 150 taxmann.com 68, Hon’ble Jurisdictional ITAT, Surat held that:- “23. We note that Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Partap Singh v. Director of Enforcement [1985] 22 Taxman 30/155 ITR 166(SC) held that illegality of the search does not vitiate the evidence collected during such illegal search. The Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of Pooran Mal to 955/SRT/2024 Palak Designer Diamond Jewellery Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2016-17 to 2018-19 - 8– v. Director of Inspection [1974] 93 ITR 505 held that even though the search and seizure were in contravention of provision of section 132, material seized would liable to be used against person from whose custody it was seized. Hence, the documents found in survey can be used against assessee even if statement on oath is retracted by the assessee. In assessee`s case the addition was made by AO based on the documents and evidences collected during survey. We also note that such admission on oath can be retracted by the assessee only if the circumstances such as threat, coercion, undue pressure etc. is established by the assessee. But in the instant case no such evidence could be produced. Similar view has been expressed by in the case of Hotel Kiran v. Asstt. CIT [2002] 82 ITD 453 (Pune).” In the present case also there was seized material during course of search of CGST at the premises of the appellant and the statement of Shri Bharat Kumar Patel which has been stated to be retracted but any threat, coercion, undue pressure etc. has not been established by the appellant. Therefore, this plea is not tenable and the case laws cited by the appellant are not applicable. (II) The appellant further submitted that the Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that income has escaped assessment and the satisfaction should be of the Assessing Officer himself. The appellant cited following case laws: (i) Varshaben Sanatbhai Patel Vs. Income Tax Officer vide ITA No: 12873 of 2014. (ii) Sarthak Securities Co. (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer-Ward 7(3) [2010], 195 TAXMAN 262. (iii) ACIT Vs. Devesh Kumar vide ITA No: 2068/Del/2010. (iv) Hon’ble Delhi Bench in case of M/s Narendra Polychem(P) Ltd. in ITA no. 6087/Del/2013. (v) Decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Meenakshi Overseas (P.) Ltd. V. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax [2017] 82 taxmann.com 300 (Delhi). (vi) Rajesh Gupta (HUF) Versus ITO, Ward – 31(4) Delhi in ITA Appeal no. 5712/Del/2019 dated 19/04/2021. (vii) Bishwa Nath Kharakia Versus ITO Ward 34(1) Kolkata 2021(4) TMI 1192 – ITAT Kolkata in Appeal no. 1487/Kol/2019. to 955/SRT/2024 Palak Designer Diamond Jewellery Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2016-17 to 2018-19 - 9– In the present case the Assessing Officer received reliable and relevant information based on material found during the search of CGST Authorities at the premises of the appellant. In case of PCIT Rajkot-3 vs. Gokul Ceramics, (0/TAXAP/2015), order dated 29 June, 2016) held that: “9. It can thus be seen that the entire material collected by the DGCEI during the search, which included incriminating documents and other such relevant materials, was alongwith report and show-cause notice placed at the disposal of the Assessing Officer. These materials prima facie suggested suppression of sale consideration of the tiles manufactured by the assessee to evade excise duty. On the basis of such material, the Assessing Officer also formed a belief that income chargeable to tax had also escaped assessment. When thus the Assessing officer had such material available with him which he perused, considered, applied his mind and recorded the finding of belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, the re-opening could not and should not have been declared as invalid, on the ground that he proceeded on the show-cause notice issued by the Excise Department which had yet not culminated into final order. At this stage the Assessing Officer was not required to hold conclusively that additions invariably be made. He truly had to form a bona fide belief that income had escaped assessment. In this context, we may refer to various decisions cited by the counsel for the Revenue.” The Hon’ble High Court decided similar issue in favor of revenue. In the present case the reopening is based on the information collected by CGST Authorities statement of Shri Bharat Kumar Patel and the record of the case. Therefore, this plea is not tenable and the case laws cited by the appellant are not applicable. (III) The appellant further, submitted that the provisions of section 147 of the Act can be pressed into action for ‘reason to believe’ and not for ‘reason for suspect’. The appellant relied on following case laws: (i) Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of Harikishan Sunderlal Virmani [2017] 394 ITR 146 dated.- 20/12/2016. (ii) Hon’ble Ahmedabad ITAT in case of Smt. Sunita Jain, Smt. Rachna Sachin Jain in & 502/AHD/2016 Dated.- March 9, 2017. I find that in the present case there was specific information of manufacturing of additional Jewellery of Rs.9,85,63,946/-which was not disclosed in the books of account of the firms. Therefore, this cannot be said to 955/SRT/2024 Palak Designer Diamond Jewellery Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2016-17 to 2018-19 - 10– to be a case where there was no reason to believe and there was suspicion only. It has been held on the various Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in case of Ganga Saran & sons (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [1981] 130 ITR 1 (SC) that the court cannot investigate into the adequacy or sufficiency of the reasons which have wade with the Assessing Officer in coming to the belief but the court can certainly examine whether the reasons are relevant and have a bearing on the matters in regard to which he is required to entertain the belief before he can issue notice under section 147. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Raymond Woolen Mills vs. ITO (236 ITR 34) held that: “3. In this case, we do not have to give a final decision as to whether there is suppression of material facts by the assessee or not. We have only to see whether there was prima facie some material on the basis of which the Department could reopen the case. The sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a thing to be considered at this stage. We are of the view that the court cannot strike down the reopening of the case in the facts of this case. It will be open to the assessee to prove that the assumption of facts made in the notice was erroneous. The assessee may also prove that no new facts came to the knowledge of the Income-tax Officer after completion of the assessment proceeding. We are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The questions of fact and law are left open to be investigated and decided by the assessing authority. The appellant will be entitled to take all the points before the assessing authority. The appeals are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.” In view of these decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court the plea of the appellant is not tenable and the case laws cited by the appellant are not applicable in its case. (IV)The appellant submitted that the reassessment proceedings have been initiated on the basis of information received and not on Independent satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer. The appellant has relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi Bench in case of Mrs. Vinita Jain reported in 158 Taxman 168. I find that the Assessing Officer recorded his satisfaction which is based on the information received from CGST Authorities through REIC (Regional Economic Investigation Counsel). In case of PCIT Rajkot-3 vs. Gokul Ceramics, (0/TAXAP/2015, order dated 29 June, 2016) Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court upheld the reopening u/s 147of the Act in a similar case where information was received from Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence. In view of this decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court the to 955/SRT/2024 Palak Designer Diamond Jewellery Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2016-17 to 2018-19 - 11– plea of the appellant is not tenable and the case laws cited by the appellant are not applicable in its case.”
8.6 In light of the above detailed findings of the Ld. CIT(A), which are well- reasoned and in consonance with settled legal principles, we find no infirmity in his order warranting interference on this issue.
Ground No. 4 – Addition of Rs. 39,42,558/- on Account of Job Work Charges
This ground relates to confirmation of addition of Rs. 39,42,558/- on account of alleged undisclosed job work charges. During reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that jewellery valued at Rs. 9,85,63,946/- was found during GST search. According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee admitted that such jewellery was manufactured on job work basis. The Assessing Officer observed that the average market rate of job work in jewellery business is around 12%. Considering that the jewellery involved diamonds, the Assessing Officer applied a reduced rate of 4% on the total valuation and made addition of Rs. 39,42,558/-.
9.1 The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee earns job work charges based on quantity of gold consumed and not on valuation of jewellery. It was submitted that the value of diamonds and stones increases the overall valuation of jewellery but does not proportionately increase labour charges. It was further contended that all job work receipts were duly recorded in books of account and that no defect was pointed out in the books. The books were not rejected under Section 145 and no evidence was brought on record to show actual receipt of unaccounted job charges.
9.2 The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition holding that application of 4% was reasonable. The relevant findings of the Ld. CIT(A) are as under:- to 955/SRT/2024 Palak Designer Diamond Jewellery Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2016-17 to 2018-19 - 12– “In this ground the appellant has challenged the addition of Rs.39,42,558/- made by the Assessing Officer on the ground that Job charges computed @4% was not shown in the total income. The appellant has submitted that the addition has been made on the basis of Shri Bharat Kumar Patel who was not a partner and also retracted his statement. The appellant submitted that the Jewellery found during search by GST department does not prove that it was for unaccounted job work. The appellant also submitted that the job work estimated at 4% is on higher side and the job charges are only on the price of gold and not includes value of Diamonds and Precious Stones. The appellant submitted that Jewellery valued at Rs.9,85,63,946/- included Diamond of Rs. 4,01,26,176/- and colour Stones of Rs.26,260/-.
I find that the appellant has not denied seizure of Jewellery works of Rs.9,85,63,946/- by the CGST Authorities. The appellant himself submitted (As per Para 14 of assessment order) that the Jewellery with it for the purpose of job work as per instruction Principle manufacturer. Thus the plea of not earning any job work charges on this Jewellery is not tenable. Further, as regards the rate applied on it the Assessing Officer observed that average market rate of Jewellery making was 12% and 4% was charged by him as it consist of Diamond also. Thus the plea of the appellant regarding applicability of job charges only on the value of metal and not on Diamond/precious Stones has already been taken care of by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the ground of appeal is not tenable and is dismissed.”
9.3 We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We find that the Assessing Officer has taken a market average which is from 4% to 12% for jewellery making and felt it reasonable to treat 4% as reasonable job charges. Since the decision of the Revenue Authorities is fair and reasonable, we decline to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT(A).
Ground No. 5 – Valuation of Jewellery at Rs. 9.85 Crores (AY 2016-17), Rs.454.29 Crores (AY 2017-18) and Rs.379.68 Crores (AY 2018-19)
This ground relates to confirmation of valuation of jewellery at Rs. 9.85 crores. The Assessing Officer adopted the valuation determined by GST authorities without conducting any independent verification. The assessee challenged the valuation both during assessment and appellate proceedings to 955/SRT/2024 Palak Designer Diamond Jewellery Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2016-17 to 2018-19 - 13– contending that it was incorrect and that the jewellery belonged to principal manufacturers. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed this ground. We find that the valuation of Jewellery at Rs. 9.85 crores is as per the CGST Authorities who seized this Jewellery at the premises of the assessee and the assessee had not filed any specific discrepancy in the valuation. The value of the additional jewellery, as determined by the Central Excise Authorities of Rs.454.29 Crs. for the AY 2017- 18 and of Rs.379.68 Cr. for the AY 2018-19, stands already verified by the Central Excise Authorities and the same information has been obtained by the Assessing Officer from Joint Commissioner, GST and Excise, Surat / Deputy Commissioner (Anti-Evasion), Surat vide their letter dated 21.07.2020. Since the assessee is the owner of the jewellery and the same was not reflected in the regular books, also that assessee has not given any details about any other person who can be said to be the owners of the jewellery and also keeping in view the fact that no other person came forward to be the owner of the jewellery, we hold that the Revenue Authorities have rightly assessed the value of the jewellery in the hands of the assessee.
Ground No. 6 – Application of Fixed Job Work Rate
This ground challenges the application of fixed assumed job work rate on jewellery valuation. The Assessing Officer applied a flat rate of 4% on the jewellery valuation. The assessee contended that making charges depend upon weight of gold consumed and complexity of design and not on valuation of jewellery. It was submitted that no uniform industry rate exists and application of a flat rate is arbitrary. We find that the job charges, in any way, has been kept at the lowest minimum of 4%; hence we decline to interfere with the order of Revenue Authorities.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2016-17 is dismissed. to 955/SRT/2024 Palak Designer Diamond Jewellery Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2016-17 to 2018-19 - 14– Appeals for A.Y. 2017-18 & 2018-19
Since the facts and issues involved in AYs 2017-18 and 2018-19 are identical, our findings given hereinabove shall apply mutatis mutandis to those assessment years as well. Accordingly, these appeals are also dismissed.
In the combined result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed.