9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 1182X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earch. CBDT Instruction dated 11-5-1994 provides that no seizure should be made in the search for the jewellery held by the ladies at 500 gms, girls at 250 gms and males at 100 gms each. Though the Instruction speaks of not seizing the same, the extended meaning of the same shows the intention that the jewellery is to be treated as explained one and is not to be treated as unexplained for the purpose of Income-tax Act. This instruction came to be considered by several Benches all over India in which it has been held that it would be relevant for the purposes of making addition as well. When this instruction is applied to the facts of the case, we observe that the possession of gold jewellery of 38,748.28gms, which is far less than declared jewellery of 46,634.842 gms it cannot be held to be unexplained. - ITA 48/2021, 49/2021, 50/2021, 51/2021, 52/2021, 53/2021, 54/2021 & CM APPL. 6877/2021, 6938/2021, 6940/2021, 6945/2021, 6949/2021, 6952/2021, 7191/2021 - - - Dated:- 22-2-2021 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA Appellant: Mr. Ajit Sharma, Senior Standing Counsel. Respondent: Mr. Rohit Jain, And Mr. Aniket D. Agra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2012-13, AO also added interest income on the ground that the Respondent-Assessee would have earned interest on the balance available in the foreign bank account. In appeal, the CIT(A) held that deposits in the foreign bank account were rightly taxed by the AO under Section 69, however since no corroborative evidence was adduced to establish that interest was actually earned, the CIT(A) deleted the addition in that respect and the same was upheld by the learned ITAT vide the impugned order. The learned ITAT held that documents received by the Indian government are undated and unsigned and do not contain reference to any bank. Since no evidence emerged that the Respondent-Assessee had earned interest, the addition of interest could not be sustained. For AYs 2006-07 and 2007-08, the learned ITAT also came to the conclusion that there was no investment made by the Respondent-Assessee in the foreign bank account in these two assessment years and thus, the provisions of Section 69 could not have been invoked to make the additions of US$ 11,02,829 and US$ 43,359 respectively. 3. Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Appellant-Revenue argues that the funds mentioned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igned the consent waiver form, which would have enabled the department to seek information from HSBC Bank Geneva? Further, following identical question of law in AYs 2007-08 to 2012-13, except for the change in the figures, is urged in respect of addition of interest income. The question of law for the sake of convenience is extracted from the appeal in respect of AY 2007-08, as follows: b. Whether ITAT has not erred in deleting the addition of AY 2007-08 on ₹ 1,64,962/- made by the AO on account of undisclosed interest income in HSBC Geneva on the alleged balance appearing in the undisclosed foreign bank account without considering that the Assessee would have earned interest on his balance income in HSBC Geneva? 7. In our view of the aforesaid, the learned ITAT has rightly held that there could not be any dispute on the legal proposition that the very same amount cannot be taxed twice in the two assessment years. The relevant portion of the impugned order reads as under- 5.1 Importantly, the assessee, while denying ownership of any foreign bank account, in his income tax return for assessment year 2012-13 offered for tax ₹ 5,81,32,321/- as amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd any perversity in the aforesaid observations made by the learned ITAT in respect of additions made on quantum and interest. In view of the aforesaid, the question of law raised by the Appellant-Revenue in the present appeals in respect of quantum does not arise for our consideration. Since the addition on quantum cannot be sustained, the addition of interest cannot survive. Thus, no question of law arises in respect of deletion of addition of interest component. 9. Further, in ITA 53/2021, pertaining to AY 2012-13, there were certain additional facts regarding the discovery of undisclosed jewellery which were dealt with by the learned ITAT in detail. Before moving to the observations of the learned ITAT in this regard, it is necessary to highlight the additional question proposed to be framed by the Appellant-Revenue. The same reads as under: a. Whether ITAT has not erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 1,12,89,616/- on account of alleged unexplained jewellery found during the course of search, which has been confirmed n appeal by CIT(A) without appreciating that assessee was unable to provide an item wise reconciliation of jewellery to the extent of 6,716.700 grams ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
