TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 823X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y Smt. Sharmila. Since they are family members, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that they might have owned gold jewellery to the extent of 863.920 gms of gold jewellery. It is also an admitted fact that the assessee filed return of income in his HUF capacity for the assessment year 2006-07 and disclosed 410 gms of Jewellery. The assessee claimed before the Assessing Officer that the HUF purchased 410 gms of gold jewellery in the month of February, 2006. In the absence of purchase bill, the Assessing Officer made addition in the hands of the individual assessee. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that when the assessee filed return of income for assessment year 2006-07 claiming that 410 gms of jewellery was purchased by HU ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellery was found. According to the Ld. counsel, the assessee and family members disclosed 1710 gms of gold jewellery. Therefore, excess jewellery of 955 gms was found. The assessee explained before the Assessing Officer that 888 gms of jewellery belongs to Smt. Rajalakshmi, wife of the assessee and Shri Manivannan in his individual capacity owns 150 gms of jewellery and in HUF capacity he owns 420 gms of jewellery. Similarly, Smt. Sharmila owns 640 gms of Jewellery, thus the total comes to 2864 gms of gold Jewellery. Therefore, the assessee claimed before the Assessing Officer that there was no excess jewellery. However, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee has not furnished any purchase bill for the jewellery purchased. Since the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Department, therefore, excess gold jewellery of 955 gms was seized by the Department. After considering the explanation of the assessee, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee could not produce purchase bill for purchase of 410 gms of gold jewellery in February, 2006. Therefore, the Assessing Officer made an addition of ₹ 7,51,610/-. 4. I have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material on record. Admittedly, there was a search in the residential premises of the assessee on 09.11.2006 and the Revenue authorities found 2665 gms of gold jewellery. After considering the disclosure made by the assessee, the Revenue found that 955 gms of jewellery was in excess. The assessee explained before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o Smt. Sharmila was not considered by the Assessing Officer to the extent of 640 gms. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that by taking into consideration of the status of the assessee and other family members, the gold jewellery owned by Smt. Sharmila, Shri Manivannan (HUF), Shri M. Ramalingam (HUF) cannot be totally ruled out. When the Assessing Officer accepted the jewellery to the extent of 1801.800 gms in the hands of three persons, as disclosed in page 3 of the assessment order, he should have taken note of the status of the assessee as HUF, the status of Shri Manivannan (HUF) and the jewellery owned by Smt. Sharmila. Since they are family members, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that they might have owne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
