9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (8) TMI 37X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal justified in law in holding that on the basis of the interpretation of the will, the applicant had not established that the jewellery was not acquired by inheritance ? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal justified in law in holding that under Section 69A of the I.T. Act the tax is leviable on the value of jewelleries and ornaments for the assessment year 1984-85 although the said jewelleries and ornaments were assessed to tax under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 for the assessment years 1980-81 to 1983-84 ? 2. The assessment year involved herein is assessment year 1984-85. 3. On 5 th July, 1983 there was a search action under Section 132 of the Act at the residential premises of the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted that the Tribunal was in error in confirming the addition of the value of the jewellery as unexplained investment under Section 69-A of the Act. He submitted that although the said jewellery was not set out in the will executed by the assessee's father, the assessee had established that the jewellery was inherited from her father in the year 1928. He submitted that in the year 1928 the assessee was a minor and, therefore, the father of the assessee had kept the jewellery with Smt.Asrumati Bogilal Dalal being given to the assessee and her sister at the time of their marriage. He submitted that the two daughters namely the assessee and her sister got married in the year 1945 and 1947 respectively. However, due to certain differences ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o find out as to whether the assessee had any source of income from which the investment in jewellery could be made. In the absence of such finding, the Tribunal ought not have held that the jewellery in question represented unexplained investments made by the assessee. Accordingly, Mr.Bhujale submitted that the questions referred to this Court be answered in favour of the assessee. 12. We do not find any merit in the arguments advanced on behalf of the assessee. According to the assessee, the jewellery in question have been inherited from her father. Admittedly, the father of the assessee who passed away in the year 1929 had made a will in the year 1928 for disposition of all the properties held by him and the said will has also been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceedings nor in the wealth tax proceedings. Secondly, it is only after the search and seizure of the jewellery in the year 1983 and during the pendency of the proceedings, the assessee voluntarily filed wealth tax return for A.Y. 1975-76 to A.Y. 1983-84 disclosing the said jewellery as inherited from her father. Mere acceptance of the said returns without any investigation would not preclude the Assessing Officer to tax the jewellery on being found that the said jewellery constituted unexplained investments. 15. Reliance was placed by the assessee on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Smt. P.K. Noorjahan (supra). In our opinion, the said decision has no bearing on the facts of the present case because, the assessee wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
