Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘ C’ SMC BENCH : CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN
आदेश / O R D E R
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-16,Chennai in dated 20.09.2017 for the assessment year 2012-13.
None appeared on behalf of the Assessee and Shri Mr.B.Sagadevan represented on behalf of the Revenue.
The ld. Counsel on behalf of the assessee prayed for adjournment stating in his adjournment application dated 21.05.2018 that the time barring cases will be posted before Settlement Commission on 23.05.2018 and likely to continue for this week. The reasons given by the assessee is not found to be reasonable and consequently adjournment request of Counsel for the assessee stands rejected. Hence, the appeal is disposed off on merits.
It was submitted by ld.D.R that in regard to ground No.1 of assessee’s appeal, it was against the action of Ld.CIT(A) in confirming the addition of `1,43.250/- representing the value of 2,865 grams of silver at `50 per gram of silver. It was a submission that there was a search operation on the premises of one Mr.M.Sivalingam.
The assessee is the daughter-in-law of the said Mr.M.Sivalingam. It was a submission that the assessee was residing at Singapore and is a non-resident. It was a submission that in the course of search on Mr.M.Sivalingam, 30,865 grams of silver was found, which was owned by the assessee. It was a submission that assessee had claimed 28,000 grams of silver as having received in the form of Sthreedhan at the time of her marriage. The ld. Assessing Officer treated the investment of 30,865 grams of silver as unexplained investments. ON appeal, Ld.CIT(A) on the ground that assessee had disclosed 28,000 grams of silver in her Wealth Tax return filed as on 31.03.2009, accepted the claim of assessee to an extent of 28,000 grams of silver.
In respect of the balance 2,865 grams of silver, though it had been specifically claimed the same had been received by the assessee through her relatives and friends on various occasions, the disallowances had been made on account of no corroborative documentary evidences had been produced. It was a submission that disallowance confirmed by Ld.CIT(A) was liable to sustained.
I have considered the submissions of ld.D.R and perused the materials available on record. The fact remains that the assessee was married in April, 2001. The search on the premises of father-in-law took place in March, 2012 after nearly 11 years. The assessee is a non-resident and stays in Singapore. No assessee would under normal conditions be maintaining bills and vouchers in respect of purchase of silver and jewellery for such a long period. The fact that the assessee has filed her Wealth Tax Return for the year ending 31.03.2009 and has shown 28,000 grams of silver as having been owned by the assessee, at that point of time itself shows the capacity of the assessee. Further, there is no evidences found in the course of search to show that the assessee per se has any undisclosed income, which could have been used for making unexplained investments. This being so, I am of the view that no addition on this count is called for in so far as no unexplained source of income itself has been found in the hands of assessee, which could have been used for making the investments, especially considering the fact that the assessee is a NRI and is staying in Singapore.
It was submitted by ld.D.R that in regard to ground No.2 of assessee’s appeal, it was against the action of Ld.CIT(A) in confirming the addition of `8,57,250/- in respect of diamond jewellery. It was a submission that in the course of search, certain diamond jewellery was found, which the assessee claimed to have purchased in a Singapore.
It was a submission that though the assessee had produced bank statement showing the withdrawal of 6,138.50 Singapore Dollars on 15.02.2011, the value of jewellery as per the valuation report was to an extent of `8,57,250/- whereas the withdrawal of Singapore Dollars value at that time was only `2,17,916/- It was a submission that the addition may be sustained.
I have considered the submissions of ld.D.R and perused the materials available on record. The fact that the diamond jewellery is purchased in Singapore, stands undisputed even from the assessment order. There is no evidence to show that assessee had moved the money from India to Singapore for the purpose of purchasing diamond jewellery. It is now question of valuation. Be that as it may, the diamond jewellery which has been purchased in Singapore, cannot be treated as unexplained investment of assessee in India in so far as nothing has been found to show that assessee has spent Indian currency or income taxable in India has been used without paying the necessary taxes for the purpose of purchasing in Singapore. In these circumstances, the addition as confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) on this count, stands deleted.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court after conclusion of hearing on 23rd May, 2018, at Chennai.