9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (12) TMI 82X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asst. Yrs. 1950-51 to 1955-56 at Rs. 13,922, Rs. 14,960, Rs. 13,478, Rs. 7,193. Rs. 13,105 and Rs. 11,205 respectively. 3. On 22nd Oct., 1954, i.e., on the last day of the previous year relevant to the asst. yr. 1955-56 a partial partition of the business capital amounting to Rs., 78,977 took place between the aforesaid two brothers of the family. After the said partial partition a partnership firm was formed consisting of two brothers as partners, namely Shri Kundanmal and Shri Rajmal. This business was carried on in the name and style of M/s. Karamchand Tilokchand and the firm was duly registered. The said firm was assessed since 1956-57. In the asst. yrs. 1956-57 to 1971-72 the firm was assessed at Rs. 7,132, Rs. 9,050, Rs. 7,903, Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... usehold use. The ITO was of the view that the acquisition of remaining silver utensils weighing 50kgs. Worth Rs.. 1,150 per kg. at Rs. 57,000 remained unexplained. According to the ITO in the absence of any evidence on record acquisition of the said silver utensils remained unexplained. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 57,500 was made as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources. 7. Before the ld. AAC in appeal the assessee filed the affidavit of Shri Sujanmal Anchalia. A detailed statement (copy of which is filed before the Tribunal) was filed before the AAC. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, inter alia, submitted that the finding of the ITO was not correct. The ITO did not give any weight on the evidence and affidavit filed before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atio of decisions in the cases of Mehta, Parikh Co. vs. CIT (1956) 30 ITR 181 (SC), Dilip Kumar Roy vs. CIT (1974) 94 ITR 1 (Bom) and Roshan Di Hatthi vs. CIT 1977 CTR (SC) 200 : (1977) 107 ITR 939 (SC). 10. The ld. D.R. contended that the affidavits filed by the assessee either before the AAC or ITO are only self serving documents. No other evidence was produced by the assessee to prove the source of acquisition of 50 kgs. silver utensils. The silver utensils were disclosed in the partial partition dead and as such it could be presumed that no such silver utensils were possessed by the HUF. According to the ld. D.R., there was no convincing evidence on record to prove that the appellant's family was found to be the owner of silver uten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he family aged 72 years. In his affidavit he clearly stated that he is Karta of the joint family namely, Karamchand Tilokchand, Jaora. He further stated that M/s. Karamchand Tilokchand (HUF) is an old and well-reputed family. It was possessing silver utensils and ornaments weighing 58 kgs. and the same were used by the family members for household purposes. He further stated that these utensils possessed by the family were very old and were used from time to time. He himself has been seeing the use of the said utensils. He clearly stated that since his childhood he has seen the said silver utensils and ornaments and the same have been used by the family members. Shri Mangilal, son of Shri Rajmal also filed an affidavit. In his affidavit he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns. Even the ITO in his assessment order stated as under: "Considering the status of the assessee, possession of gold ornaments are accepted. However, regarding possession of the silver utensils, assessee was called upon to explain the acquisition of the same vide order sheet entry dt. 19th July, 1979. As stated in the order entry dt. 23rd Oct., 1979 the assessee expressed inability to produce evidence for acquisition of assets. In the written reply letter filed on 23rd Oct., 1979 the assessee contended that these were acquired by forefathers 200 years back. In support of this contention an affidavit of Shri Rajmal and Shri Mangilal have been filed. In these affidavits, both the persons have stated that since they came to the age, they re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... firm and the said firm was assessed since asst. yrs. 1956-57 to 1977-78. The details of assessee's income has already been reproduced above. Looking to the affidavits and the aforesaid facts it is proved that the assessee HUF is very old and reputed family. The forefathers had purchased utensils. In good old days in such families silver utensils were in use. As the assessee HUF was having good status and as such it could very easily afford to use silver utensils. In those days the silver was very cheap. Thus the contention of the assessee and the contents of affidavits are supported from other material as discussed above. Since the deponents of the affidavits were not cross examined either by the ITO or the AAC, it was not correct on the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
