9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (6) TMI 1527 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained jewellery - Addition on substantive basis at the hands of the assessee - HELD THAT - While deciding the issue in the first round in case of assessee s wife Commissioner (Appeals) held that out of jewellery weighing 1046.90 gms jewellery weighing 488.84 gms was owned by the assessee. The aforesaid decision of learned first authority was also upheld by the Tribunal 2013 (10) TMI 1601 - ITAT DELHI . It is to be noted after examining the facts and evidences brought on record thoroughly learned Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded a factual finding that jewellery worth of Rs.1, 86, 100/- representing 211.46 gms stands explained. Whereas Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded a categorical finding that the assessee could not file any evidence in respect of source of acquisition of jewellery weighing 221.44 gms. Even at this stage also the assessee has not brought any material to explain the source of investment in jewellery weighing 221.44 gms. Thus in absence of any contrary material brought on record by the assessee to point out any error in the factual finding of learned Commissioner (Appeals) we do not find any reason to interfere with the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals). Ground raised is dismissed. Unexplained investment in equity shares - As after examining the facts and materials on record including the seized materials he has given a categorical finding that the investment in shares not reflected in the records of the assessee works out to Rs.1, 45, 904/-. The aforesaid factual finding of Commissioner (Appeals) remains uncontroverted before us. Unexplained deposit in foreign bank accounts - As could be seen from the observations of Commissioner (Appeals) he has given a factual finding that there is no evidence with the Revenue to prove that the deposits made in the said bank account was to the tune of Rs.50 lakhs. However in the same vein he has directed the AO to make necessary inquiry regarding the deposits made in the same bank account and subject to such inquiry sustained the addition to the extent of Rs.25 lakhs while deleting the balance amount of Rs.25 lakhs. Commissioner (Appeals) has given a categorical finding that the assessee had not disclosed the allowance amount of 4000 GBP received from Ms. Thiara. No material has been brought before us to controvert the factual finding of learned Commissioner (Appeals). Unexplained life insurance premium paid abroad - This issue was decided against the assessee by the Tribunal in earlier round of litigation which was accepted by the assessee. That being the factual position on record this cannot be a subject matter of dispute now. Undisclosed income of the assessee based on seized material As observed by Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order assessments in case of the concerned entities are pending due to stay granted by Hon ble Delhi High Court. Thus learned Commissioner (Appeals) while deleting the additions at the hands of the assessee has observed that additions if any has to be considered in the case of M/s. Seasons Creation Pvt. Ltd. M/s. Mela Ram Jaggi Sons and M/s. Duke Hosiery. In our view the aforesaid decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals) being in conformity with the direction of the Tribunal in the earlier round of litigation no interference is called for. Accordingly this ground is dismissed. Addition on account of unexplained foreign travel - As decided by CIT it is apparent from the submissions made and records produced before me that the averment of the revenue that no details were filed is not factually correct. The identity of and confirmation from Mr. B S Thiara regarding giving GBP 4000 was filed not only before the CIT(A) but also before the AO during the subsequent assessment proceedings. No verification has been made nor any evidence adduced or reasons cited by the revenue to contradict the evidence filed by the appellant. Therefore the addition made cannot be sustained. Also Since the source of the purchase of FC is from these firms the addition cannot be sustained in the hands of the appellant and is accordingly deleted.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered in this judgment include:
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS 1. Unexplained Jewellery The relevant legal framework involves the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961, particularly section 158BC, which deals with search and seizure assessments. The Court examined the facts and evidence, noting that the jewellery weighing 1046.90 gms was seized, and the Assessing Officer made additions on both substantive and protective bases. The Tribunal found that the assessee could not provide evidence for jewellery weighing 221.44 gms and upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to add this amount substantively to the assessee's income. 2. Unexplained Investment in Equity Shares The legal framework again involves section 158BC. The Court reviewed the evidence, including the wealth tax return for 1992-93, and found that the unexplained investment in shares amounted to Rs.1,45,904/-. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to restrict the addition to this amount, as the assessee did not provide contrary evidence. 3. Unexplained Deposit in Foreign Bank Accounts The legal framework includes sections 158BC and 143(3). The Tribunal noted that there was no evidence to support the Rs.50 lakh deposit claimed by the Revenue. The Commissioner (Appeals) directed further inquiry and sustained an addition of Rs.25 lakhs, with Rs.2,80,000/- separately taxed as the allowance received by the assessee. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with this decision. 4. Unexplained Life Insurance Premium Paid Abroad The Tribunal noted that this issue was previously decided against the assessee by the Tribunal and accepted by the assessee, thus not subject to further dispute. The Commissioner (Appeals) followed this precedent, and the Tribunal upheld the decision. 5. Revenue's Appeal on Deletions The Tribunal addressed various grounds raised by the Revenue, including deletions related to unexplained jewellery, foreign travel expenses, and investments in shares/debentures. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) acted in accordance with the Tribunal's directions in the first round of litigation, particularly regarding assessments related to M/s. Seasons Creation Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Duke Hosiery, and M/s. Mela Ram Jaggi & Sons. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decisions to delete these additions from the assessee's hands. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Tribunal's significant holdings include:
The Tribunal concluded by dismissing both the assessee's and the Revenue's appeals, maintaining the decisions of the Commissioner (Appeals) across the various issues presented.
|
