2010 (10) TMI 74 - HC - Income Tax

Search and seizure - jewellery was seized - jewellery was picked up on approval was to be returned - According to said jeweler, no jewellery was given to the appellant on approval basis - Held that - assessee has referred to Voucher No.30 dated 29.10.2004, vide which the jewellery was sent to her by M/s. Kesri Chand & Co. If she was in the possession of the said voucher, we are unable to understand as to how she could give the name of the wrong jeweller on 2nd November, 2004 when she was questioned about the jeweller from whom she had taken the jewellery on approval basis. Even if it was an unintentional slip on her part, no explanation has been given by her as to why she did not realize this fact for almost two years - appeal is accordingly dismissed

Summary

Issues:
Explanation of jewellery seized during search operation, discrepancy in statements regarding the source of jewellery, credibility of appellant's explanation, assessment of evidence provided by appellant, determination of whether the change in appellant's statement was an afterthought.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a search and seizure operation where jewellery worth Rs. 85,44,147/- was seized, with a dispute over Rs. 8,06,035/- of unaccounted jewellery. The appellant initially claimed the jewellery belonged to a jeweler and was on approval basis, but the jeweler denied this during assessment proceedings. The appellant later changed her statement, attributing the jewellery to another associate concern of the jeweler. The court assessed the credibility of these claims, considering the timing and consistency of statements provided by both parties involved.

The appellant's explanation regarding the jewellery being supplied by another concern of the jeweler was scrutinized. The court noted discrepancies in the appellant's communication, where the date of jewellery supply did not align with the search date. Additionally, the sale voucher provided by the appellant lacked essential details, raising doubts about its authenticity. The court highlighted the appellant's failure to explain these inconsistencies, further questioning the reliability of her claims.

The judgment emphasized the importance of maintaining consistency and providing credible evidence in such cases. The court found the appellant's change in statement to be questionable, especially considering the prolonged silence on the matter. The tribunal's decision, deeming the appellant's explanation as an afterthought, was upheld, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The court concluded that no legal question arose from the facts presented, affirming the tribunal's findings as not being unreasonable or erroneous.