9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (8) TMI 256X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mption under s. 69A is rebuttable. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the direction of the CIT(A) is illegal and prayed to be vacated." 3. In ITA No. 725/Asr/1998, the following grounds have been raised by the assessee: "1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has gravely erred in upholding addition of Rs. 2 lacs on account of jewellery found during search operations and surrendered there and then and was agreed to be split up in the last four years and stands assessed. 2. That while upholding the addition, the CIT(A) ignored that the locker was operated in the last four years also for which the split up was agreed with the Department and also stands assessed in those years along with split up of other items agreed during search. 3. That the charging of interest under s. 215/217 is against law and facts of the case and the interest charged under s. 244A is against all cannons of justice." 4. On perusal of the grounds of appeals, it would be clear that the only issue agitated by the assessee in ITA No. 614/Asr/1994, and vide ground Nos. 1 and 2 of ITA No. 725/Asr/1998 relates to the addition of Rs. 2 lacs surrendered by the assessee at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch jewellery and he, therefore, included the value of the jewellery amounting to Rs. 2 lacs as the income for the financial year 1987-88 relevant to the asst. yr. 1988-89. Before making the aforesaid addition, the AO also called upon the assessee to produce documentary evidence if the jewellery was acquired in earlier years but no such proof was submitted by the assessee. 6. In the first appeal before the CIT(A), the learned counsel for the assessee in his written submissions submitted the following extract from the statement of the assessee recorded on the conclusion of the search about the unexplained investments: "So far as the surrender of the jewellery is concerned, some jewellery is seized at my residence yesterday and some jewellery is lying in the locker with Bharat Overseas Bank, Adda Bastian, Jalandhar. Out of this I surrender a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs representing over in last four years." It was further stated that in pursuance of the above statement, the assessee filed revised income-tax returns on 25th Jan., 1991, declaring therein additional income of Rs. 50,000 and the same were accepted. The learned CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee direc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1987 to 22nd May, 1987, to justify its addition in asst. yr. 1988-89. It was also stated that the authorised officers who were conducting the search should have asked the assessee to surrender jewellery in year of search itself but the assessee was made to surrender in the last 4 years. It was further argued that the assessee had made different surrenders against building, stock and TV which had been accepted by the AO. Therefore, there was no justification in not accepting a splitting up of surrender in respect of the jewellery. 7.1 The learned CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee observed that although the presumption under s. 69A of the IT Act was considered to be rebuttable presumption but no evidence had been pointed out or produced by the assessee before the AO or before him to indicate that the investment in the undisclosed jewellery had been made not in the previous year relevant to the asst. yr. 1988-89, but in earlier four years equally. According to the learned CIT(A), the assessee had not been able to rebut the presumption under s. 69A of the IT Act and neither there was any evidence nor any authority with the authorised officer to enterd into an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee in ITA No. 614/Asr/1996 and accordingly dismiss the same. 8.1. As regards to the merit of the case is concerned, the learned counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and also submitted that the assessee surrendered a sum of Rs. 2 lacs on account of jewellery while making statement, recorded under s. 132(5) of the IT Act, on the condition that the same was to be spread over in the last four years. It was vehemently argued that at the time of recording of the statement, the assessee specifically mentioned that the surrender of Rs. 2 lacs representing the unexplained investments may be spread over in the last four years and the abovesaid surrender had been made with the entire purpose to purchase peace and avoid confrontation with the Department and litigation, etc. He drew our attention towards page Nos. 4 and 5 of the paper book which is the statement of the assessee recorded on 20th Oct., 1987, by the ADI-cum-ITO. It was vehemently argued that the assessee after adding the income of Rs. 50,000 in each of the last four years, revised the return of income and paid the taxes, so, there was no justification in making the addit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of acquisition of the money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article, or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the (Assessing) Officer, satisfactory, the money and the value of the bullion, jewellery or other valuable article may be deemed to be the income of the assessee for such financial year." From the above provisions of s. 69A, it would be clear that although the presumption under that section is considered to be a rebuttable presumption but the onus is on the assessee to give the explanation to the satisfaction of the AO. In the instant case, the assessee miserably failed to produce any evidence before the AO to substantiate that the jewellery was purchased for equal amount in each of the last four years that is the years relevant to the asst. yrs. 1984-85 to 1987-88. The assessee had not produced any documentary evidence in support of her contention, as regards to the purchase of jewellery was concerned. It is also noticed that nothing is available on record to establish this contention of the assessee that an u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
