Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Shri M. Ramalingam Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle II, Tiruchirapalli.

2015 (12) TMI 823 - ITAT CHENNAI

Unaccounted gold jewellery found to the extent of 863.920 gms was treated as undisclosed investment - Held that:- 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, he should have taken n .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 HUF, the addition cannot be made in the hands of the assessee in his individual capacity. At the best, the addition could have been made in the hands .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

DER This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Tiruchirapalli, dated 21.08.2014 and pertains to assessment year 2007-08. 2. Shri S. Sridhar, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that there was a search under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') in the premises of the assessee on 09.11.2006. According to the Ld. counsel, the assessee is one of the partners in M/s Rabbit Jewellery, Rabbit Finance and .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ssee 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 h .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

UF, the assessee has shown the purchase of gold jewellery to the extent of 410 gms. However, the purchase bill was not produced. In the absence of proof of purchase of gold jewellery in the HUF status, the CIT(Appeals) rejected the contention of the assessee and confirmed the addition to the extent of ₹ 7,51,610/- made by the Assessing Officer. Referring to page 3 of the assessment order, the Ld.counsel submitted that the assessee has disclosed the details of gold jewellery belonging to va .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

wellery. The assessee and his family disclosed only 1801.800 gms to the 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 relev .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

family members of the assessee to the extent of 1801.800 gms, found that the balance jewellery to the extent of 863.920 gms was not explained. Referring to the claim of the assessee that 410 gms of gold jewellery was purchased in HUF capacity, the Assessing Officer found that in the absence of any purchase bill, the same cannot be accepted. Accordingly, the unaccounted gold jewellery found to the extent of 863.920 gms was treated as undisclosed investment and an addition of ₹ 7,51,610/- w .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

vannan owns 420 gms of gold jewellery and Smt. Sharmila owns 640 gms of jewellery. It is not in dispute that the assessee, other than in his individual capacity, has also acquired in HUF capacity. Likewise, Shri Manivannan also acquired apart from individual capacity, in the HUF capacity. The jewellery belonging to 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 stat .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version