9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (4) TMI 167X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellery were seized from the premises. At the time of search, statement of the assessee as well as his wife were recorded under s. 132(4) of the IT Act. In the first assessment order, the income was as under: . Rs. (1) Cash found and treated as unexplained 12,348 (2) Investment in acquisition of gold ornaments 1,72,000 (3) Income from profession (gold-smith) 40,000 (4) Investment under s. 69B 2,00,000 . 4,24,248 3. The assessee being aggrieved, preferred appeal against this order before the CIT(A) who set aside the order and restored the same to the file of the AO by issuing directions. The first appellate authority accepted the contention of the assessee that the so-called surrender was not voluntary and the assessee was forced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itions, if any are required to be made on account of unexplained gold ornaments or other movable and immovable assets, the same should be made on merits after examining the relevant details and incriminating material e.g., if the acquisition of residential house and plots, etc. are not explained then the action for taxing the escaped income can be taken only in the relevant previous year and the same cannot be added for the assessment year under reference. These issues, therefore, required fresh consideration after allowing adequate opportunity to the appellant. The above additions of Rs. 1,72,000 and Rs. 2,00,000 are, therefore, restored to the file of the AO with the directions that the case should be examined on merits and additions shou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The AO has given due consideration for their statements. Furthermore the appellant had made a surrender which was later on retracted. The surrendered amount added by the AO at Rs. 1,72,000 + Rs. 2,00,000 = Rs. 3,72,000 in the assessment order has been left out of assessment under appeal because the AO ignored the surrender made by the appellant in view of the specific directions of the CIT(A) as referred to above. Now we are only concerned with the addition for unexplained jewellery. Hence, the addition for investment in the jewellery has to be sustained because the appellant cannot have the best of the both words. The appellant has been allowed sufficient relief by my predecessor. Therefore, in my opinion no further relief is admissible. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r authorities. It is also argued that the assessee's wife had in all about 80 tolas--68 Tolas of ornaments received from her-in-laws at the time of marriage and 10 tolas from her parents. At the time of birth of sons etc. she also received further gold ornaments. Thus, she claimed that she was having around 80 tolas of gold ornaments. This fact is duly corroborated from the statement recorded under s. 132(4) of the Act. It is further submitted that out of this possession of gold ornaments, assessee and his wife gave some ornaments to the three daughters-in-law at the time of their marriage, and the gold ornaments presented by both these persons were around 22 tolas to each of the daughters-in-law. The daughters-in-law also received some go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned Departmental Representative strongly supports the order of the AO. 8. We have examined the facts and the arguments of the rival parties and have perused the material available on record. While making the addition of unexplained gold ornaments, AO has not rebutted the affidavits filed by the various persons. The statements recorded under s. 132(4) of the assessee as well as his wife and other statements of the daughters-in-law of the assessee all points towards one fact that assessee's wife was in possession of roughly 80 tolas of gold ornaments. This fact has not been examined or rebutted by the AO. Out of this possession of 80 tolas, assessee and his wife has gifted some items of ornaments to their daughters-in-law which is not unusua ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etc. The AO, however, treated the jewellery worth Rs. 2,14,720 as unexplained and belonging to the assessee. It is also worth noting that at the time of search at the premises, assessee in his preliminary statement recorded by the authorised officer strongly submitted that the ornaments found at his residence belonged to the various ladies of the family. Wife of the assessee also explained the source of the possession of these ornaments at the very same time. At no stage these statements or affidavits filed by various persons were controverted. In view of various facts, like status, customs, gifts at the time of marriage, child-birth, etc. the entire jewellery found should have been accepted as explained and belonging to the various ladie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
