Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (9) TMI 956 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained jewellery - source of the impugned addition for jewellery - Held that:- Assessee’s plea that the jewellery did not belong to the assessee but belong to the married daughter is not sustainable in light of the fact that in search the assessee’s wife Smt. Smita Thakkar in her statement dated 28.09.2011 in response to Q.4 wherein she was asked to explain the source of jewellery found in Locker No. 321, she has confirmed the jewellery found in locker no. 321 consists of Gold & Diamond jewellery are valued at ₹ 39,54,600 on 28.09.2011. The assessee’s wife further explained that jewellery belongs to herself and her daughter-in-law and also of her family members consisting of herself and her husband the assessee. It was also explained by her that the jewellery pertains to all the family members. Further, in response to the Assessing Officer’s enquiry on the source of the jewellery, assessee’s Counsel has given explanation and reconciliation. In those submissions it was never stated that assessee cannot give any explanation as the jewellery did not belong to him or that the onus was not upon the assessee to explain the same. When the assessee’s explanation has not been accepted, for being devoid of cogency, assessee is raising ground that the jewellery did not belong to the assessee, rather it belonged to his daughter. As find that the submission is not at all sustainable. CIT(A) in the case of assessee’s daughter has clearly held that the said addition on account of jewellery was not sustainable in her hands. In this background, we find that orders of authorities below are very cogent and correct. The shifting of stand by the assessee now de hors any cogent explanation for the source of impugned jewellery found, is not at all sustainable. - Decided against assessee.
|