2008 (1) TMI 634 - HC - Income Tax

Income from undisclosed source Jewellery Jewellery inherited under a will Genuineness of will not proved Inclusion of jewellery proper Income from undisclosed sources Additional on account of deposits Deposits not huge amounts Explanation of assessee, accepted

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of the warrant of authorization issued under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Explanation of possession of jewellery worth Rs. 2,96,800.
3. Inclusion of Rs. 30,000 as unexplained income of the wife of the assessee.

Issue 1: Validity of the warrant of authorization:
The High Court examined the contention that the warrant of authorization issued in favor of the Additional Director of Income-tax was invalid, rendering the search under section 132 of the Income-tax Act illegal. The Court noted that the term "Deputy Director" included an Additional Director as per a Notification dated November 6, 1979. Since the Additional Director was authorized to issue the warrant, the Court upheld the validity of the search. The Court emphasized that the assessee did not challenge the validity of the Notification, leading to the dismissal of this contention.

Issue 2: Explanation of possession of jewellery:
Regarding the explanation of possession of jewellery worth Rs. 2,96,800, the Court observed that the genuineness of a will presented by the assessee to explain the possession had not been accepted by the authorities. The will, executed by a 95-year-old individual, lacked evidence of the testator's understanding of its contents. The Court found discrepancies in the will, indicating it was created solely to justify the possession of the jewellery. Consequently, the Court upheld the authorities' decision to reject the genuineness of the will.

Issue 3: Inclusion of Rs. 30,000 as unexplained income:
The Court addressed the contention that Rs. 30,000 included as unexplained income of the assessee's wife was wrongly determined. It was argued that the amount could have been saved from household expenses, considering the wife's marriage duration of over 10 years. The Court agreed that the authorities had overlooked the plausibility of the wife saving such an amount from household expenses. Consequently, the Court set aside the inclusion of Rs. 30,000 as unexplained income, highlighting the authorities' failure to consider the ground reality in this regard.

In conclusion, the High Court partly allowed the appeal, primarily due to the reversal of the inclusion of Rs. 30,000 as unexplained income. The Court found no substantial legal question arising from the case, except for the specific issue addressed, leading to the partial allowance of the appeal.