9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (1) TMI 143X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts of the case are as under: The assessment year with which we are concerned is 1988-89. The assessee, an individual, filed her return of income admitting a net income of Rs. 92,872. For the same assessment year in the wealth-tax return filed the assessee admitted 3659 grams of gold jewellery. However, during the course of search in the residence of the assessee and her husband on December 14, 1987, 953 grams of gold jewellery belonging to the assessee were found. In respect of the missing jewellery to the tune of 2706 grams, the assessee explained that she handed over the same to her husband about three years back. Her husband also by letter dated February 21, 1988, confirmed the same stating that the jewellery of 2706 grams belongi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come. Aggrieved by the same, the Revenue sought for a reference. The Accountant Member of the Tribunal rejected the reference application, whereas the Judicial Member was of the opinion that the application of the provisions of sections 69 and 69A being involved besides its interpretation, a question of law arose out of the order of Tribunal. Since there was a difference of opinion, the matter was referred to a Third Member who agreed with the view expressed by the Judicial Member. Accordingly, the Tribunal has stated a case and referred the question of law referred to above. The only point to be decided is whether the Tribunal was right in deleting the addition made under section 69 of the Act. The Tribunal found that the said jewell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee as owning jewellery to the extent of 3569 gms. requiring her to explain to the tune of 2706 gms. The words 'found to be the owner' may require interpretation. I am therefore of the view that the question as raised by the Revenue would be a mixed question of facts and law. I would therefore agree with the view expressed by the Judicial Member that a question of law as raised by the Department does arise and deserves to be referred for the valued opinion of the hon'ble High Court of Madras." Concededly, in the wealth-tax return for the assessment year 1987-88 the assessee admitted gold jewellery to the extent of 3569 grams and on December 14, 1987, during the search in the residence of the assessee, gold jewellery to the extent of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e and source of the investments or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the value of the investments may be deemed to be the income of the assessee of such financial year." A reading of the above section goes to show that the Assessing Officer may treat the value of investment as income only when the explanation offered by the assessee is not satisfactory. The Tribunal has rendered a finding that there was no material for the assessing authority to conclude that the exact quantity of missing jewellery had been acquired at a subsequent date. As observed by the Gujarat High Court in Ushakant N. Patel v. CIT [2006] 282 ITR 553, the Revenue must establish that there was investment not r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
