9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 261X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was, therefore, required to apportion some amount towards investment or savings. The Tribunal, therefore, rightly granted the benefit of ₹ 4 lakhs as past savings. The plea with respect to shridhan is similarly unfounded as the benefit has been granted on account of shridhan of the assessee's wife, Smt. Surbhi Kohli. The benefit granted to Suresh Kumar Kohli, father of the assessee, pertains to the latter's wife, i.e., mother of the appellant and then also in the assessment pertaining to Suresh Kumar Kohli.- Decided against revenue. Unexplained jewellery found in locker No. 72 - Held that:- After appraisal of the evidence adduced before the Assessing Officer, namely, an affidavit by Harbans Lal and his statement recorded be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the addition of ₹ 9,75,333 confirmed on account of peak of unexplained credits in various bank accounts when both the additions were independent of each other ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in allowing the benefit of past savings of ₹ 4 lakhs invested in jewellery found from locker No. 39 with Canara Bank, Pathankot, when the assessment record of the assessee does not reflect any such withdrawals for the acquisition of jewellery ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in further allowing the benefit of 400 grams of jewellery as stridhan of the assessee's wife, S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 39;s wife is incorrect as similar benefit had already been allowed in the case of the assessee's father, Sh. Suresh Kumar Kohli. The benefit of shridhan could only have been allowed either to the assessee in the present case or to his father, who is the assessee in I. T. A. No. 136 of 2000. It is also argued that the additions of ₹ 8,29,936 made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained jewellery found in locker No. 72, State Bank of Patiala have been deleted disregarding contradictions in the version put forth by the assessee and failure of the assessee to prove that the jewellery belonged to other persons. It is prayed that as the impugned order is not only contrary to law but is perverse and arbitrary, the appeal may b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ertains to ancestral jewellery. As regards question No. 3, it is argued that as the owner of the jewellery appeared before the Assessing Officer and claimed the jewellery as his own. The Assessing Officer was, therefore, not justified in adding the cost of the jewellery to the income of the appellant. The Tribunal has, after recording clear and cogent reasons, deleted the addition by holding that the jewellery belongs to one Harbans Lal who had filed an affidavit and appeared before the Assessing Officer. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order as well as the order passed by the Assessing Officer. A search of the assessee's business premises, his house and various banks is the foundation of block ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g its opinion considered the matter in its entirety and only thereafter recorded findings against the Revenue. Admittedly, ₹ 4,92,325 on account of non-genuine gifts was already included in the addition of ₹ 9,75,333 made by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal, therefore, rightly deleted this addition. As regards the benefit of past savings of ₹ 4 lakhs granted to the appellant, the Assessing Officer himself held that jewellery belongs to the appellant and was, therefore, required to apportion some amount towards investment or savings. The Tribunal, therefore, rightly granted the benefit of ₹ 4 lakhs as past savings. The plea with respect to shridhan is similarly unfounded as the benefit has been granted on accoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
