Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (12) TMI 1663 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained jewelry - excess jewellery found in a search - explanation offered by the assessee that if the credit is given for 500 grams for each family members in terms of instruction no.1916 dated 11-05-1994 which governs the seizure, during the course of search and seizure operations source for 1300 grams can be treated as explained - Held that:- Now we deal with the applicability of CBDT instruction in terms of which credit of 1300 grams of jewellery was claimed by the assessee. It is the duty of the assessee to bring on record the family members with supporting evidence and also prove that other family members i.e. father of assessee had not claimed the same relief. We find from material on record that it is father of the assessee, who offered the explanation in support of source of jewellery found. We also find that father of the assessee and assessee are residing jointly. Mere reliance on the case laws does not come to the rescue of the assessee without bringing any supporting material on record in support of legal proposition. Therefore, in absence of any material on record, we are not able to grant any relief on this ground. Regarding the ancestral jewellery of 500 grams the assessee had not produced any evidence proving the existence of ancestral jewellery of 500 grams therefore, it cannot be treated as explained. Regarding the balance jewellery of 400 grams in the hands of the assessee’s wife Smt.Saritha Bai, the order of learned CIT(A) is well reasoned since the wealth tax return of the assessee’s wife was filed after conclusion of search & seizure operation, it cannot be treated as explained. - Decided against assessee
|