SONY SAREEN,NW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-26, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1777/DEL/2022Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2023AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the revenue authorities had not examined the issue of the jewellery in detail. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue on merits after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

What were the facts?

During a search operation, jewellery found in a locker jointly held by the assessee and her husband was added to her income. The assessee claimed the jewellery was received as gifts during her marriage and on various other occasions over 35 years.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of jewellery found in a locker to the assessee's income was justified, and whether the penalty proceedings were valid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271AAB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI

Before: Dr. B. R. R. KumarSh. Yogesh Kumar US

Hearing: 28.02.2023Pronounced: 23.05.2023

Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member:

1.

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A)-31, New Delhi dated 29.06.2022.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.7119587 made by the assessing officer on account of jewelery found in the locker in the joint name of the assessee and her husband Mr. Bimal Krishan Sareen during search operations of her assessee. The jewellery in question was received by the assessee at the time of her marriage from her parents and parents-in-laws. She also received jewellery from her parents, in-laws and other relatives on various occasions like birthdays, birth of childeren, marriage anniversaries, festivals and other occasions over a period of 35 years. Affidavits by Mrs. Indu Wig (mother of the assessee) and Mrs. Swaraj Sareen

2 Sony Sareen {mother-in- law(now deceased)} confirming jewelery given by them are enclosed.}

2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred by ignoring the submissions made by the assessee during assessment proceedings before the assessing officer.

3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the penalty proceedings initiated by the assessing officer under section 271AAB of the Income Tax Act 1961.”

3.

Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record.

4.

The assessee could not avail the opportunities given by the ld. CIT(A) from 19.07.2019 to 01.06.2022. Before us, it was submitted that the assessee could not present before the ld. CIT(A) owing to unavoidable personal contingency and prayed that given an opportunity due compliance would be made before the ld. CIT(A). We have gone through the written submission filed by the ld. AR. The issue of jewellery has not been examined in detail by the revenue authorities. The ld. DR opposed to the plea of the assessee in principle.

5.

We find that no prejudice would be caused to the revenue if an opportunity of being heard be given to the assessee and the order is passed on merits of the case. Hence, we remand the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue on merits. The revenue authorities would be at liberty to initiate penalty proceedings in compliance to the notices issued from time to time.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 23/05/2023.

More judgments on Section 271AAB

All 797 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271AAB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →