Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” Bench, Mumbai
Before: Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Ravish Sood(JM)
O R D E R Per B.R. Baskaran (AM) :-
The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 31-03-2016 passed by Ld CIT(A)-52, Mumbai and it relates to the assessment year 2012-13. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of Ld CIT(A) in partially confirming the addition relating to unexplained jewellery.
We heard the parties and perused the record. The assessee was subjected to search operations u/s 132 of the Act on 10-08-2011. It was found that the assessee was having two bank lockers. The aggregate quantity of jewellery found at the time of search in lockers and residence was 3251.480 grams. The AO treated jewellery weighing 1693.250 grams as explained. Out of the remaining jewellery weighing 1558.23 grams, the AO assessed 1136.210 grams valued at Rs.26,98,498/- on substantive basis in the hands of the assessee. The remaining 421.990 grams valued at Rs.10,02,226/- was assessed on substantive
2 Smt. Smita A. Thakkar basis in the hands of assessee’s husband, but still the AO assessed the same in the hands of the assessee on protective basis.
The assessee submitted before the AO that the jewellery weighing 1121 grams found in locker no.1144A maintained with Bank of Baroda actually belong to her daughter named Dr. Darshita Thakker Talim, who is residing in USA. The assessee stated the same in the statement taken from her u/s 132(4) of the Act and also corroborated the same by furnishing affidavit from her daughter. The AO did not agree with the same.
The Ld CIT(A) deleted the protective addition of Rs.10,02,226/-, since the substantive addition has been made in the hands of assessee’s husband. The Ld CIT(A) also agreed with the assessee that the jewellery belonging to daughter Dr.Darshita Thakker Talim should not be assessed in the hands of the assessee.
We have earlier noticed that the substantive addition made in the hands of the assessee was 1136.210 grams valued at Rs.26.98 lakhs. The remaining addition was protective addition, which has already been deleted by the Ld CIT(A) and the revenue has not challenged the same. We have also noticed that the Ld CIT(A) has also expressed the view that the jewellery belonging to the daughter of the assessee should not be assessed in the hands of the assessee.
The case of the assessee is that the Ld CIT(A), having observed so, has not given credit of 1121 grams, i.e., jewellery belonging to the daughter of the assessee. On a perusal of the order of Ld CIT(A), we notice that the Ld CIT(A) has given credit for net weight of 419.38 grams (gross weight 597.70 grams) only as jewellery belonging to daughter of the assessee. This discussion finds
3 Smt. Smita A. Thakkar place in paragraph 17 of his order. We have earlier noticed that the AO has given credit for 1693.250 grams. The Ld CIT(A) discusses about the same in paragraph 15 of his order. He raises doubt about the evidences furnished before the tax authorities, i.e., whether those evidences relate to the jewellery already given credit or not. In this process, he observes that evidences for gross weight of 597.700 grams (net weight 419.300 grams) valued at Rs.9,89,000/- was not explained. However the Ld CIT(A) finally gives credit for the very same amount as jewellery belonging to the daughter of the assessee.
We notice that there is lack of clarity in this matter. The Ld A.R also submitted that the rationale adopted by Ld CIT(A) is not understandable. His case is that the Ld CIT(A) should have excluded 1121 grams fully after accepting that the same belonged to the daughter of the assessee. He further contends that the evidences furnished in the form of payments made to jewellers should have also been accepted by considering the difficulty of the assessee to explain old transactions of more than 15 years old.
Having regard to the rival submissions, we are of the view that there is no clarity in the workings given by Ld CIT(A). We find merit in the submissions of the Ld A.R that the Ld CIT(A) should have excluded entire quantum of jewellery belonging to the daughter. With regard to the evidences furnished by the assessee, we notice that the Ld CIT(A) has drawn certain inferences, instead of getting clarifications on the same from the AO. Under these set of facts, we are of the view that this issue may be examined afresh by Ld CIT(A) by duly considering all the relevant facts. Accordingly we restore this issue to the file of Ld CIT(A) and the assessee is free to make all the contentions before him.
4 Smt. Smita A. Thakkar
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order has been pronounced in the Court on 16.1.2016.