Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2011 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (9) TMI 1009 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 69B - unexplained investment in property - Held that:- The burden is on the revenue to show that the assessee has made an investment. Thereafter, the investment has to be related to a financial year. The course of events show that revenue has not proved that investment in the immovable property was made by the assessee. The year in which the investment was made is also not discernible from the document. Therefore, we are of the view that this document alone cannot form basis for making any addition. Accordingly, it is held that the ld. CIT(Appeals) rightly deleted the addition. Ground nos. 1 and 2 are, thus, dismissed. Unexplained investment in jewellery - Held that:- In this case, the assessee has already accepted that jewellery valued at ₹ 10.00 lakh is unexplained and, therefore, this amount has been brought to tax. The question is regarding the balance jewellery of ₹ 8,87,998/-. The Board circular, referred to above, mentions that 500 grams of jewellery may not be seized in case of a married woman, 100 grams in case of the husband, 100 grams in case of the son and 250 grams in case of unmarried daughter. Taking the circular into account and the composition of the family, jewellery up to 950 grams should not be seized in this case. This means that jewellery to this extent is taken as accounted jewellery even in absence of any evidence. According to the ld. CIT(Appeals), the jewellery valued at ₹ 8,87,998/- weighs about one kilogram. Therefore, we are of the view that no part of this jewellery was liable to be included in the total income of the assessee. Accordingly, his order is upheld on this ground also.
|