COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XIII vs. SH KULDEEP RAI CHAWLA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . ITA 460/2013 . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XIII . ..... Appellant . Through Mr. N.P. Sahni, Sr. Standing Counsel. . versus . SH KULDEEP RAI CHAWLA . ..... Respondent . Through Nemo. . CORAM: . HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA . HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA . . . O R D E R . 08.10.2013 . . . The findings of the tribunal are factual. The question raised is whether the said findings are perverse. . 2. On the question of jewellery, learned counsel for the appellant has rightly submitted that the wealth tax return of the wife was filed after the date of search on 28th February, 2007. However, the tribunal has held that the jewellery belonged to the wife and the respondent-assessee had inherited jewellery from his mother. The total value of the jewellery as per 2007 rates was Rs.31,71,990/- but addition of Rs.26,31,990/- was made with the Assessing Officer accepting that jewellery worth Rs.5,40,000/- belonged to the wife. Jewellery stated to be of the wife was valued at Rs.17,85,050/- and jewellery found in the locker was Rs.13,86,940/-. The respondent had stated that the said . jewellery in the locker originally belonged to his late mother. It is noticeable that details of jewellery owned and acquired are not required to be mentioned in the income tax returns. Income declared by the respondent-assessee for earlier years is neither stated nor mentioned. Neither has it been stated whether the respondent-assessee was questioned about source/acquisition of jewellery at the time of search and whether any explanation was given. For the assessment year in question, i.e., Assessment Year 2007-08, the assessee had declared professional receipts of Rs.8,62,511/- and after deducting expenses of Rs.4,50,454/- net income of Rs.4,12,057/- was declared. With regard to jewellery inherited from the mother, her will, items mentioned therein and valuation report was referred to by the Commissioner (Appeals). . 3. With regard to cash of Rs.14,57,200/-, we find that at the time of search, statement of the respondent-assessee was recorded and in which he has deposed that Rs.10 lacs belonged to his brother and Rs.73,000/- was received from Suchitra Puri regarding a civil matter. This explanation has been accepted by the tribunal and the first appellate authority. Addition of Rs.84,000/- has been sustained by the tribunal. . 4. Keeping in view the aforesaid factual matrix, we do not think any substantial question of law arises for consideration. The appeal is dismissed. . . . SANJIV KHANNA, J. . . . . . . . SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. . OCTOBER 08, 2013 . VKR/NA . $ 28 and 29 .