9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Revenue appeals and cross-objection regarding the ownership and source of acquisition of jewellery found during a search and seizure operation in the case of late Shri Jawahar Lal Jain for the assessment year 1987-88. Analysis: The case involved a dispute over the ownership and source of acquisition of jewellery found during a search and seizure operation at the residential and business premises of the assessee. The Assessing Officer initially added the value of the jewellery found at the residence in the hands of the husband and protectively in the hands of the wife under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The wife claimed ownership of the jewellery, stating it was received at the time of her marriage about 22 years ago. The CIT(A) held that the entire jewellery belonged to the wife and that the source of acquisition was explained, deleting the addition made in both the husband's and wife's hands. The Revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s decision, arguing that the source of acquisition was not satisfactorily explained and that the CIT(A) erred in relying on the Board's instructions regarding the seizure of jewellery. The counsel for the assessee contended that the jewellery belonged to the wife, emphasizing that the nature of the jewellery indicated it was for female use only. The counsel cited a Supreme Court decision shifting the burden of proof to the Revenue to disprove ownership claims. The Tribunal considered the evidence and found that the jewellery found in possession of the wife, including items like bangles and necklaces, strongly indicated her ownership. The Assessing Officer accepted the explanation for the jewellery found in a locker but questioned the source of the remaining jewellery. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the wife, coming from a business family, could have received the jewellery at the time of her marriage, especially considering the historical prices of gold and silver. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition in both the husband's and wife's hands, concluding that the source of the jewellery was adequately explained. In the final judgment, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision. The cross-objection filed by the assessee in support of the CIT(A)'s order was also dismissed as no new issues were raised, rendering it infructuous.
|
