9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (12) TMI 71X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riage (solemnised on 16th Jan., 1979) she got cash gifts amounting to Rs. 20,000 and other gifts representing articles of jewellery, coins, silverwares etc. to the extent of Rs. 46,276. However, the ITO took the view that there was no evidence to prove the said gifts. Accordingly, he made an addition of Rs. 63,276 (Rs.43,276 + Rs. 20,000) as unexplained investment. In appeal, the learned AAC accepted the cash gifts. However, he held that the gifts of various items of silver utensils valued at Rs. 23,732 was not established. Therefore, an addition of Rs. 26,000 is round figures was upheld. Thereafter, with reference to the said addition, the ITO initiated penalty proceedings against the assessee under s. 271(1)(c). However, the ITO did not a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2) that as the assessee did not make any investment the provisions of s. 69 were not applicable, (3) that there was no column in the income-tax return requiring the declaration of any deemed income and (4) that the addition had been made and sustained on estimate basis. 5. Reliance was also placed by him on the following decisions: 1. Smt. Kamlawati Raizada vs. CED (1976) 105 ITR 703 (All) 2. Tara Devi Goenka vs. CIT (1980) 122 ITR 14 (Cal) 3. CIT vs. Jewels Paradise (1975) 101 ITR 265 (Kar) 4. Durga Sharan Udho Prasad vs. CIT (1976) 103 ITR 270 (Pat) 5. CIT vs. Lal Babu (1980) 15 CTR (Pat) 173: (1980) 122 ITR 1006 (Pat) 6. CIT vs. Suchitra Sen (1982) 26 CTR (Cal) 8 : (1982) 135 ITR 797 (Cal) 7. CIT vs. C.K. Na ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty under s. 271(1)(c). The assessment year involved is 1979-80. Since the finding of the IT authorities was that the assessee had offered an explanation which she was not able to substantiate we have to see whether, in terms of the provisio appended to Expln. I, the explanation of the assessee was bona fide and all the facts relating to the same and material to the computation of her total income had been disclosed by her. A perusal of the assessment order dt. 27th March, 1982 shows that the assessee had filed detailed explanation accompanying the return to the effect that she had received various gifts at the time of her marriage. The assessee had married Shri Ajai Bindal s/o. Shri Brij Bhushan Bindal of Modern Industries, Sahihabad. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of Rs. 26,000. The Tribunal in its order dt, 14th Feb., 1985 also noticed that there was no evidence in the shape of confirmatory letters or affidavits. Therefore, for want of positive evidence, the addition was confirmed. There was no finding by any of the authorities that the claim of the assessee was false or bogus. We have gone through the details of the silver utensils consisting of rice plates, full plates, half plates, dongas, spoons glasses. The mere failure on the part of the assessee to produce evidence regarding gifts of silver utensils cannot show that her explanation was not bona fide. This is particulary by so when the matter is viewed in the background of the status of the assessee's own family and the family of her in-l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
