2022 (8) TMI 483 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of search proceedings - Treatment of jewellery found in locker as the stock in trade of the appellant - As in search of locker the jewellery and ornament worth Rs.70,10,799/- was found - HELD THAT - The demand raised was on the basis of return of income. The statement recorded under section 132(4) dated 09.11.2012 while giving the answer to question No.18, the assessee has accepted the jewellery worth Rs.28 lakhs that includes stock of business as he was operating the business on small scale basis. The AO did not consider the statement of the assessee and also did not consider the capital gain, balance sheet, ITR and passed assessment order under section 153C read with section 143(3) - CIT(A) did not consider the same because the assessee was not having the place of business and the stock was found as in the locker. It is not a ground to decline the case of the assessee, because capital account, balance sheet, ITR, assessment order reflected the stock and claim to that extent is also liable to be given to the assessee in accordance with law. Hence, it is quite clear that it is not the income of the assessee and stock is not liable to be included as income. Accordingly, the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is not justifiable, hence, is hereby ordered to be set aside and these issues accordingly are decided against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. Appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed.

Issues:
1. Validity of search action and assessment order.
2. Addition of jewelry as stock in trade.
3. Consideration of appellant's statement and balance sheet.

Issue 1: Validity of search action and assessment order
The appellant challenged the legality of the search action and the assessment order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The appellant contended that the search action was illegal and without jurisdiction. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the addition of Rs.22,31,445 as jewelry found in the locker, not treated as stock in trade. The appellant argued that the assessment order was arbitrary and against the facts of the case. The appellant emphasized not having a shop or office for jewelry business, maintaining a locker for safekeeping, and providing personal balance sheets as evidence.

Issue 2: Addition of jewelry as stock in trade
During a search, ornaments worth Rs.70,10,799 were found in the locker, including jewelry belonging to third parties and family members. The appellant claimed an additional stock of Rs.22,31,445. The appellant, a trader in gold and jewelry without a physical business location, was assessed under section 153C for multiple assessment years. The appellant's statement under section 132(4) acknowledged jewelry worth Rs.28 lakhs, including stock for a small-scale business. The Assessing Officer did not consider this statement, leading to an assessment order under section 153C. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) did not consider the appellant's lack of physical business location as grounds for denial. The Tribunal held that the stock found in the locker was reflected in the appellant's capital account, balance sheet, and income tax return, indicating it was not income and should not be included as such.

Issue 3: Consideration of appellant's statement and balance sheet
The Tribunal found that the appellant's capital account, balance sheet, and income tax return consistently reflected the stock of jewelry found in the locker. Despite the lack of a physical business location, the Tribunal emphasized that the appellant's financial records supported the existence of the stock. The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)'s decision, ruling in favor of the appellant and against the Revenue. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appellant's appeal, emphasizing the importance of considering the appellant's financial records in assessing the validity of the addition of jewelry as stock in trade.

This judgment highlights the significance of maintaining accurate financial records and the relevance of such records in determining the legitimacy of additions to income, especially in cases involving the discovery of assets during search actions.

← Previous Next →