9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (9) TMI 61 - HC - Income TaxAddition - Search and seizure - cash and jewellery - the Assessee gave his explanation about the source of the jewellery - In addition, he relied upon the Board s Instruction No.288/63/92-IT (Inv.) dated 11th June, 1994 regarding the possession of jewellery and submitted that on the basis of the Board s instructions the jewellery of such a low value is not to be seized - Decided in favour of assessee. Unexplained investment in house property - there is no much of the difference between the valuation shown by the Assessee of these properties and valuation arrived at by the DVO. It is less than 10%. The CIT(A) and ITAT, in these circumstances, stated that when difference is between 10% to 15% no addition should be made as per the various judgments on this issue. No question of law arises. Dismissed.
Issues:
1. Deletion of unexplained investment in jewellery by ITAT. 2. Deletion of unexplained investment in house property at Pitampura and godown at Bakoli by ITAT. Analysis: 1. The appeal raised two questions regarding the deletion of unexplained investments by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The first issue pertained to the unexplained investment in jewellery amounting to Rs. 2,52,021. During a search and seizure operation, excess jewellery was found, leading to an addition by the Assessing Officer under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act. However, the Assessee provided explanations supported by Board instructions, leading to the deletion of this addition by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)), a decision upheld by the ITAT. The High Court found no legal issue with this decision, as it was in line with the Board's instructions, hence dismissing any challenge on this aspect. 2. The second issue involved unexplained investments in house property at Pitampura and a godown at Bakoli. The valuation differences between the Assessee and the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) were within 10%, falling below the threshold where additions are typically warranted. Citing various judgments on this matter, both the CIT(A) and the ITAT concluded that no addition should be made when the difference falls within the 10-15% range. The High Court concurred with this reasoning, finding no legal question to be addressed and subsequently dismissing any challenge on this issue.
|
