9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 919X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 69A of the Act? 2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,01,100/- in the Assessment Year 1987-88 specially in view of the addition made in the assessee's own case for the Assessment Year 1986-87 which addition includes the alleged source of the jewellery valued at Rs. 2,02,100/-, thereby resulting in a double addition?" 3. The common facts necessary to answer both the above questions in this appeal are as under: On 19 March 1986, a search action under Section 132 of the Act was carried out by the revenue in respect of the appellant's premises. During the course of the search, on 20 March 1986, a locker key belonging to one Mrs. Sujata Malani was seized, who at the relevant time was staying with the appellant. 4. On 28 July 1986, the locker of Mrs. Malani (the key to which was seized on 20 March 1986) was opened by the revenue. On opening the locker, jewellery valued in the aggregate of Rs. 2.53 lakh was found therein. In the course of proceedings under Section 132(5) of the Act, the revenue on 25 November 1986 accepted the explanation of Mrs. Malani that jewellery valued at Rs. 2.41 la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rence to questions submits that the locker key was found by the revenue on 20 March 1986 at the time they conducted the search of the appellant's premises. Thus it would be on that date, that the jewellery valued at cost of Rs. 2.01 lakh was found in the ownership of the appellant for the purposes of Section 69A of the Act. The finding of the jewellery it is submitted was not dependent upon opening of the locker but on the revenue having possession of the keys to the locker which contained the jewellery. In these circumstances, it was submitted that the jewellery was found in the previous year relevant to Assessment Year 1986-87 and not Assessment Year 1987-88. In support, Mr. Subramaniam also placed reliance upon the decisions of Gauhati High Court in Patoa Brothers Vs. CIT. 133 ITR 672, Madhya Pradesh High Court in Harlal Mannulal Vs. CIT. 147 ITR 11 and of this Court in Mathuradas Gokuldas Vs. CIT. 102 ITR 425. (b) As against the above, Mr. Pinto, the learned Counsel for revenue in support of the impugned order states that the locker keys which were seized on 20 March 1986 belonged not to the appellant but to one Mrs. Malani. Therefore it is only on opening the locker that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /money etc was found in the possession of the party in whose hand Section 69A of the Act was applied. (e) So far as decision in Patoa Brothers by Gauhati High Court is concerned, the facts are that the revenue during the course of search proceedings found at the residence of the applicant therein undeclared articles such as Swiss made wrist watches, hair and main springs and Indian currency notes, etc. at a total value of Rs. 1.2 crores. This was assessed to income under Section 69A of the Act. The search took place on 3 March 1970. The revenue assessed the applicant therein to tax for the Assessment Year 1970-71. However the applicant therein claimed that as ownership of the articles found in its residence was determined only when an assessment order was passed on 25 August 1971, the appropriate assessment would be the Assessment Year 1972-73. The Gauhati High Court on the basis of plain interpretation of Section 69A of the Act held that the date on which the applicant was found to be in possession of the jewellery, etc. would be the date to be taken into consideration while assessing the party to tax. The fact that the assessment order renders a finding that the applicant in who ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no application to the present facts, as admittedly the jewellery was found only on 28 July 1986 on opening the locker belonging to Mrs. Malani for which the relevant Assessment Year is 1987-88. (h) In view of the above, so far as the first question is concerned, we find no infirmity in the impugned order of the Tribunal and the same is answered in the affirmative in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. 10. Question 2: (a) It was urged by Mr. Subramaniam that the jewellery found in the locker of Mrs. Malani belonging to the appellant was sourced from the amounts received by the appellant in cash from M/s Industrial Meters Ltd. in which he was Director and the same was a subject matter of consideration by the revenue for the Assessment Year 1986-87. Thus seeking to charge the tax on the same jewellery, as deemed income where the source of jewellery is found in diaries which were the subject matter of consideration during the Assessment Year 198687. Thus charging of tax in the Assessment Year 1987-88 would lead to double taxation. (b) As against the above, Mr. Pinto submits that the occasion to tax the jewellery found in the locker of Mrs. Malani valued at Rs. 2.01 lak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
