SMT SHANTA DEVI vs. COMMISSIONER OF I T

PDF · subscribers
ITA/6/2002HC RajasthanRJHC02019524200031 August 20163 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the view taken by the Tribunal was just. The Tribunal had found that the addition was made by the AO based on a statement recorded at the time of opening a locker, and no rebuttal was made by the assessee. The assessee had also deposited tax on the surrendered amount. The Tribunal noted that there were no allegations of inducement, threat, or promise by the authorized officer. The assessee surrendered 88 gms of jewelry, and in the assessment of her father-in-law, the findings disclosing gifts were not challenged. The Tribunal considered the affidavits in the form of gift deeds to be of no help, as admissions made during the search operation constitute substantial evidence, corroborated by inculpatory documents. The substantial portion of the sworn statement relating to the admission of gold ornaments was not retracted. Therefore, the Tribunal was of the opinion that the addition made by the AO on the basis of the sworn statement was valid and confirmed the finding of the CIT(A) sustaining the addition of Rs. 76,065/- under Section 69B. The issue was answered against the assessee and in favour of the revenue.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Smt. Shanta Devi, is appealing an order from the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) which dismissed her appeal. The Assessing Officer (AO) had made an addition to her income under Section 69-B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for unexplained gold ornaments found during a search and seizure operation under Section 132. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had also dismissed the assessee's appeal. The High Court admitted the appeal and framed substantial questions of law. The search commenced on 10.10.1990, and a statement was recorded at the time of opening a locker on 6.12.1990. The assessee had deposited tax of Rs. 24,277/- on surrendered jewelry.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in treating gold ornaments as unexplained and sustaining an addition of Rs. 76,065/- under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as explained investment in the hands of the appellant? Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not explicitly record the assessee's arguments before the High Court, other than the framing of the substantial question of law. However, the question implies the assessee argued that the gold ornaments should have been treated as explained. Revenue's Contention: The revenue contended that the addition made by the AO was valid. The ITAT's reasoning, as quoted in the judgment, indicates that the revenue relied on the assessee's admissions made during the search operation, the payment of tax on surrendered jewelry, and the lack of rebuttal at any stage. The revenue also pointed to the assessment of the father-in-law, Shri Kajornal, where findings disclosing gifts were not challenged.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132,Section 69-B,Section 69,Section 132(5)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 6/2002

Smt. Shanta Devi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Date of Order : 31st August, 2016 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. P.K. Kasliwal for the appellant. Mr. Anuroop Singhi for the respondents.

1.

By way of this appeal, the assessee has filed

the appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal whereby the tribunal has dismissed the appeal preferred by the assessee.

2.

The Assessing Officer passed an order against the assessee. A search and seizure operation was carried out under Section 132 and unexplained ornaments were added to the income of the assesseee under Section 69-B. The said order was carried out in appeal before the CIT (Appeals).

The appeal was dismissed. It was further carried by him in appeal to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The ITAT also dismissed the appeal filed by the assesseee.

3.

This court while admitting the matter framed following substantial questions of law:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in treating gold ornaments as explained found during the course of search and sustaining making an addition of 2 Rs. 76065/- under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as explained investment in the hands of the appellant?”

4.

Heard learned Counsel for appellant.

4.1.

Taking note of the fact that the 132(5) at the same time of search on 10.10.1990, the statement of the husband of the assessee was not recorded in view of the provision of Section 69-B.

4.2.

The observations made by the Tribunal in para 9 reads thus:- “We have carefully considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the records. We find that in this case the addition was made by the A.O. on the basis of statement recorded at the time of opening of a locker on 6.12.90 whereas the search was commenced on 10.10. 90. We have further noted that no rebuttal was made by the assessee while passing the order under Section 132(5) and not only this the assessee has also deposited the tax of Rs. 24,277/- in pursuance of the statement recorded at the time of search. We also noted that there is no allegation at any stage of the proceedings before the Income Tax authorities or before us that the statement has been procured by inducement, threat or promise by the authorised officer at the time of search operation. Even at the assessment stage the assessee has surrendered 88 gms of jewellery and in the assessment of Shri Kajornal, father-in-law of the appellant, for the A.Y. 1990-91 the findings of the AO disclosing the gift has not been challenged. In view of the clear admission made by the appellant and her husband and payment of tax on the surrendered amount and also no rebuttal was made at any stage of order made under Section 132 (5), we are of the opinion that the affidavits in the form of gift deeds are of no help to the assessee. Admissions made by the assessee during search operation constitute a substantial evidence in view of 3 sections 17 & 21 of the Evidence Act. The admission is fully corroborated by documents and records which are inculpatory

in nature.

The substantial portion of the sworn statement relating to admission of gold ornaments has not been retracted by the assessee at any stage by any documentary evidence. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the addition made by the AO on the basis of sworn statementn is valid. We find support from the order of the ITAT Ahmedabad Bench 'C' of the Tribunal 76065/- u/s 69B.”

5.

In our view, in view of concurrent finding of all authority & no rebuttal by assessee & father- in-law not supported theory of gift.

6.

In our considered opinion, the view taken by the tribunal is just. The issue as recorded is answered against the assessee and in favour of the revenue.

7.

The appeal stands dismissed. (AJAY RASTOGI),J. (K.S.JHAVERI),J. A.Sharma/23

More judgments on Section 132

All 14,598 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →