9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 1067X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r consideration was filed by it on 26-10-2006 declaring total income of ₹ 14,043/-. From the perusal of profit loss account and balance sheet filed by the assessee along with the said return, it was noticed by the AO that the assessee has claimed to have stock of jewellery of ₹ 2,10,65,665/-. As required by the AO, the assessee explained that the said stock of jewellery was brought forward from the earlier years and the source of the same was conversion of jewellery owned by the partners into stock of the firm. In support of this explanation, copies of wealthtax returns of the partners for the assessment year 2002-03 were filed by the assessee along with the copy of partnership deed. Not satisfied with this explanation of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the department has accepted the declaration of the appellant in the concerned year U/s 69, the previous year when such deemed income shall be taken to have accrued shall be year in which the investment was first recorded. Once it is accepted in that year, it is not open to the Assessing Officer to doubt it in the subsequent year on suspicion, surmises and conjectures. The appellant has also filed the Wealth tax returns of the partners nin support of his contention and records show that they have been accepted by the department. The onus was on the appellant to prove the genuineness of the transaction and the appellant in this case has proved the same. The jewellery has been declared in the Wealth Tax returns and the returns have not be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respect of stock already existing. In any case, the question is the introduction of capital in form of stock in trade by partners. The same, I find, stands proved and accepted as receipt by way of Will in earlier years therefore, there seems to be no reason for doubting it in the hands of the appellant in this year. The partners, I find, have filed personal returns of income in all the years, wherein the inheritance of jewellery has been declared and in Assessment Year 2003-04 the partners have individually complied with the provisions of section 43(5), when they converted the assets into stock in trade. This stands accepted by the department. As the partners have declared Long Term Capital Gains on the said jewellery, I find, there was no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t by the assessee firm in assessment year 2003-04 itself and the same, in our opinion, cannot be treated as unexplained and added in the year under consideration as rightly held by the learned CIT(Appeals). Moreover, wealth-tax returns of the partners were filed by the assessee showing that the said jewellery was already declared in the hands of the said partners which again was accepted by the Department. Having regard to all these facts of the case as recorded by the learned CIT(Appeals) in his impugned order which have remained uncontroverted/unrebuted by the learned DR, we are of the view that the source of jewellery in the hands of the partners of the assessee firm was duly explained and the said jewellery having been introduced by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
