2017 (9) TMI 47 - HC - Income Tax

Unexplained jewellery - Addition u/s 69A - - statements recorded u/s 131 - as per assessee jewellery belongs to the company M/s Prakash Gold Palace (P) Ltd. in which the assessee is an employee - failure to discharge the burden by assessee - Held that - Contention raised by the assessee that the jewellery belongs to the company M/s Prakash Gold Palace (P) Ltd. in which the assessee is an employee is not at all acceptable. The assessee Shri.Karun Dutt Singh as well as the company M/s Prakash Gold Palace (P)Ltd. had never established at the time of surveys conducted and during the course of sworn in statements recorded u/s 131 of the IT Act, that the gold seized belongs to the company. In the circumstances, it is decided to assess the value of the gold of ₹ 63,64,123/- in the hands of the assessee, Shri. Karun Dutt Singh as his unexplained investments for the assessment year 2007-2008 after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case. These factual conclusions which were nullified by the First Appellate Authority on an erroneous appreciation of the evidence in the case and it was therefore that the Tribunal re appreciated the entire evidence before it and set aside the First Appellate Authority s order and restored the assessment order. A reading of the Tribunal s order shows that the Tribunal has discussed each and every piece of evidence before it and came to the factual conclusion that the assessee has failed to discharge his burden under section 69A of the Income Tax Act read with section 110 of the Evidence Act. These conclusions, as rightly contended by the learned senior counsel for the revenue, are completely factual and therefore, it does not give rise to any question of law for the consideration of this Court in an appeal filed under Section 260A - Decided against assessee.

Issues:
1. Challenge to the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal concerning the assessment year 2007-2008.
2. Ownership of gold ornaments seized from the appellant and assessment under section 69A of the Income Tax Act.
3. Restoration of addition made to the returned income for the assessment year 2007-2008.
4. Proof of ownership of gold ornaments requisitioned by the Income Tax department.
5. Tribunal's raising of questions prejudicial to the appellant without an opportunity to be heard.
6. Reference to judicial decisions and Evidence Act without party citation during the hearing.
7. Applicability of presumption under section 132(4A) of the Income Tax Act.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appeal challenges the Tribunal's decision to set aside the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)'s order and restore the addition of the value of gold ornaments in the appellant's hands for the assessment year 2007-2008.
2. The Tribunal upheld the assessing officer's decision that the gold jewellery found in possession of the appellant did not belong to the appellant's employer, leading to the assessment under section 69A of the Income Tax Act.
3. The Tribunal restored the addition made to the returned income for the assessment year 2007-2008, despite the appellant's previous acceptance of salary income from the employer in the preceding assessment years.
4. The assessing officer found contradictions in statements regarding the ownership of the gold ornaments, leading to the conclusion that the appellant failed to prove ownership, resulting in the assessment against the appellant.
5. The Tribunal's actions of raising questions and answering them without affording the appellant an opportunity to be heard were questioned for being prejudicial to the appellant's interests.
6. The Tribunal's reference to judicial decisions and the Evidence Act without party citation during the hearing raised concerns about the fairness of the decision-making process.
7. The Tribunal's decision on the inapplicability of the presumption under section 132(4A) of the Income Tax Act was also challenged, questioning the correctness of the legal interpretation applied in the case.

← Previous Next →