9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (9) TMI 1862 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained jewellery in the case of the appellant owned by his daughters-in-law - HELD THAT - This appeal came up for hearing on 14.09.2017 but none appeared despite valid service of notice of hearing. We therefore had no option but to hear the appeal ex-parte and accordingly revenue was heard. We have carefully examined the order of the CIT(A) in the light of the rival submissions and we find that CIT(A) had adjudicated the issue raised before it in detail and since we do not find any infirmity therein, we confirm his order.
Issues:
1. Procedure followed in determining unexplained jewellery owned by daughters-in-law. 2. Failure to consider points raised by the father of one of the daughters-in-law. Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed against the order of CIT(A) concerning the unexplained jewellery owned by the assessee's daughters-in-law. The appellant contended that the CIT(A) erred by not following the prescribed procedure. It was argued that no statements were recorded from the appellant or the daughters-in-law regarding the jewellery. Details were provided about the daughters-in-law being income-tax assesses, receiving gifts, and possessing jewellery, which were not adequately considered by the CIT(A). Reference was made to a Board Circular from May 1994 regarding the treatment of gold possessed by married women as "Streedhan." Despite these arguments, the CIT(A) sustained additions to the declared jewellery, which the appellant challenged as not being in accordance with the prescribed procedure. 2. The Assessing Officer was also criticized for not considering the points raised by the father of one of the daughters-in-law as per the rules. Despite the appellant's contentions, the appeal hearing took place on 14.09.2017 without the appellant's presence, leading to an ex-parte hearing where only the revenue side was heard. The Tribunal examined the CIT(A)'s order and found no issues with it, ultimately confirming the order. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed on 15th September 2017.
|
