CIT vs. RAJNI MALIK

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . . . ITA 363/2012 . . . CIT ..... Appellant . Through Mr. Sanjeev Rajpal, Advocate. . . . versus . . . RAJNI MALIK ..... Respondent . Through Mr. S.K. Aggarwal, Advocate. . . . CORAM: . HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA . HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR . . . O R D E R . 23.05.2012 . . . We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, but do not feel that this appeal is to be entertained as the concurrent findings recorded by the CIT (Appeals) and the tribunal, are factual and do not require interference. . 2. The respondent-assessee is an individual and during the period relevant to the assessment year 2008-09 had sold jewellery for Rs.1,32,00,000/-. The sale proceeds were declared as long term capital gain. The Assessing Officer rejected the explanation and held that the assessee was unable to satisfactorily disclose and state the source of procurement of the jewellery. The entire amount of Rs.1,32,00,000/- should be treated as income earned from undisclosed sources. . 3. Before the first appellate authority, the respondent-assessee had filed an application under Rule 46A for production of additional documents as she was denied adequate and fair opportunity. The Assessing Officer in his reply accepted and admitted that the assessee was not provided adequate opportunity of hearing and to present her case. . Additional evidence was admitted in form of affidavits and certificates. We may note that before the Assessing Officer also the assessee had stated that she had inherited the jewellery from her father and mother, who had expired on 5th December, 2002 and 28th June, 1998, respectively. Her father was a Doctor and a Director of a hospital in district Bhavnagar, Gujarat. After death of the parents, there was a family settlement between the asseessee and her brother and sister, which was recorded in a memorandum. The jewellery in a bank locker of the parents was inherited by the respondent-assessee. The respondent-assessee had further stated that she had received jewellery of 71.9 tolas at the time of her marriage in 1984. The respondent-assessee had disclosed jewellery of 217.90 tolas in the assessment year 1993-94. . 4. The CIT (Appeals) keeping in view the status of the parents and family, memorandum of family settlement, relinquishment deed, the declaration made by the respondent-assessee in the assessment year 1993- 94, etc. have accepted the contention of the assessee. The tribunal has affirmed the said findings, which are purely findings of facts. The tribunal has also noted that the bank locker in question had not been operated from March 2000 till the same was broken on 24th December, 2003. The quantum of jewellery can be a matter of debate but the appellate authorities have examined relevant aspects and decided the question on preponderance of probabilities. . 5. Keeping in view the factual matrix and after examining the reasons recorded by the first appellate authority and the tribunal, we do not see any reason or ground to interfere or hold that the said findings are perverse. The appeal is dismissed. No costs. . . . . . . . SANJIV KHANNA, J. . . . . . . . R.V.EASWAR, J. . MAY 23, 2012 . NA . . . . . . . 1, 2 and 3 .