TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 582X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the proceedings for reassessment u/s 148 of the Act and holding that the valuables found were liable to be added to the income of the assessee for the AY 1998-99 in the absence of valid explanation - since the assessee failed to explain the nature and source of acquisition of the items of jewellery in the financial year 1986-87, presumption u/s 69A of the Act came into play and the value of the jewellery was deemed to be income of the assessee for the AY 1998-99 in which the assessee was found to be in possession of the items of jewellery- the order of the Tribunal is upheld as no substantial question of law arises for consideration – Decided against assessee. - ITA No. 195 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 15-9-2014 - Ajay Kumar Mittal And Fate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the appeal may be noticed. The appellant is engaged in business at Ludhiana. She purchased jewellery worth ₹ 10,19,809/- during the year 1986-87. However, the same remained as unaccounted asset of the appellant till 1997 when the Central Government launched Voluntary Disclosure of income Scheme 1997 (VDIS). The appellant declared ₹ 10,19,809/- under VDIS on 30.12.1997 stating before the Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhaina that the jewellery was acquired in the year 1986-87. The appellant filed declaration to that extent alongwith affidavit and valuation report as on 1.4.1987 from the approved jewellery valuer M/s New Kailash Jewellery House, New Delhi. Due to unforesee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtly allowed the appeal. Aggrieved by the order, the revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal and the appellant filed cross objections. The Tribunal vide order dated 18.1.2008, Annexure A.3, dismissed the appeal of the revenue and allowed the cross objections filed by the assessee. Aggrieved by the order dated 18.1.2008, the revenue filed appeal before this Court under Section 260A of the Act. During the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings/appeal, this Court passed judgment in another set of cases titled CIT vs. Prem Pal, (2011) 330 ITR 499 involving similar issue and reversed the findings of the Tribunal by holding that the issuance of notice under sections 147/148 of the Act for the assessment year 1998-99 was valid but remanded the sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cial year 1997- 98. The said issue stands settled by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT vs. Prem Pal (supra) wherein Hon'ble High Court has held that the Assessing officer was justified in initiating the proceedings for reassessment under section 148 of the Act and holding that the valuables found were liable to be added to the income of the assessee for the assessment year 1998-99 in the absence of valid explanation. As pointed out herein above, the assessee in the present case has failed to justifiably explain the source of investment in the said items of jewellery in financial year 1986-87 and in respect of one item of jewellery, no bill of acquisition had been filed and consequently, the market value of jewellery a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
