Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2023 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (8) TMI 515 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained jewellery - search and seizure operation concluded - AO observed that the assessee is income tax payee and return income is below taxable limit. She admitted issues not wealth Tax for assessee. The sources of jewellery was informed from savings and gifts - HELD THAT:- As jewellery which was seized in the hands of assessee was found to be part of the jewellery surrendered by father-in-law of the assessee. In the case of Shri Hitesh Mittal [2022 (2) TMI 435 - ITAT DELHI] another Coordinate Bench has taken note of the order in the case of Pallavi Mittal [2021 (9) TMI 1335 - ITAT DELHI] and has again concluded that balance seized jewelleryin the hands of Hitesh Mittal, son of Shri S.C. Mittal stood accounted being part and parcel of jewellery surrendered by Shri S.C. Mittal. Learned DR could not bring on record anything to show that these factual findings were disputed, hence, this Bench is inclined to follow the same. The arguments raised on behalf of the Revenue on the basis of reference to Section 110 of the Evidence Act, which provides that where a person is found in possession of anything the burden of proving that he is not the owner is on the person who affirms that he is not the owner, is not applicable to the facts as in the case in hand with regard to the claim of assessee that the jewellery was family jewellery and a part of which has been disclosed as unaccounted income by the father in law, justifies and explains her claim. Accordingly, the addition made in the hands of assessee cannot be sustained. Appeal of assessee is allowed.
|