9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 1079X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 887 grams of jewels at ₹ 4,07,880/- was added as undisclosed income. The said addition by the assessing officer in the assessment order was confirmed by the CIT(A) which was also affirmed by the Tribunal Admittedly, the CBDT, vide Instruction No.1916 dated 11.05.1996 has directed not to seize jewellery to the extent of 500 grams in the case of married women. Further, the appellant did not produce any bills / books of accounts / document, except her oral statement, to substantiate her claim that the entire jewels belonged to her. In such circumstances, this court finds no good reason to disagree with the findings so rendered by the Tribunal. No substantial question of law. - Tax Case Appeal No.45 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 8-3-2022 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appeals), who by order dated 27.12.2009, deleted the addition made in respect of agricultural income, but confirmed the addition made in respect of 887 grams of jewellery. The said order of the appellate authority was also affirmed by the Tribunal, in the appeal filed by the appellant. Therefore, the appellant is before this court with this tax case appeal. 3.On 25.02.2013, this Tax Case Appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in confirming the addition made in respect of jewellery found at the time of search without appreciating the explanation offered by the assessee and the guidelines issued by CBDT vide Instruction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 887 grams of jewellery as undisclosed income of the assessee, by the assessing officer as confirmed by the CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal. 8.There is no dispute with regard to the search and seizure of 1387 grams of jewellery in the premises of the appellant on 02.01.2003. The appellant claimed that the said jewels were received from her parents, mother-in-law and sister on various occasions, by way of gift. However, the assessing officer found that there was no evidence adduced by the appellant to support her claim and hence, after deducting 500 grams as gift received by the appellant, the value of balance 887 grams of jewels at ₹ 4,07,880/- was added as undisclosed income. The said addition by the assessing officer in the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h the concurrent finding of fact arrived at by all the authorities including the Tribunal? The Assessing Officer found that all the so-called gifts came from Ariavan Thotan and Suprotoman. The assessees did not declare that they are the alias of Sampathkumar. It is only an afterthought they have come forward with the said plea. The Assessing officer also found that the gifts were not real in nature. Various surroundings circumstances have been relied upon by the Assessing officer to reject the explanation offered by the assessees. The Commissioner of Appeals confirmed the findings and conclusion drawn by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal speaking though its Senior Vice President concurred with the findings of fact. The findings in our con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
