TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 1123X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act, the AO is required to consider the benefit of CBDT Instruction No. 1916 dated 11.05.1994 at the time of levying the penalty under section 271AAB. Such benefit of CBDT Instruction has to be allowed in respect of all the family members. Once the benefit is given as per the CBDT Instruction in respect of the quantity of the gold being 500 grams per married lady, 250 grams per unmarried lady and 100 grams per male member of the family, then the excess jewellery treated for undisclosed income will not survive. Accordingly, the penalty levied by the AO in respect of the excess jewellery without giving the benefit of CBDT Instruction No. 1916 is not sustainable. The same is deleted. - ITA No. 293/JP/2018 - - - Dated:- 23-9-2019 - Shri Ramesh C. Sharma, AM And Shri Vijay Pal Rao, JM For hte Assessee : Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) And Shri R.K. Bhatra (CA) For the Revenue : Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT) ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, JM : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 14.12.2017 of ld. CIT (Appeals) arising from penalty order passed under section 271AAB of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... levy of penalty by the AO. The AO while passing the penalty order dated 14.06.2017 levied penalty of ₹ 2,46,36,912/- @ 10% of the undisclosed income offered to tax. The assessee challenged the action of the AO before the ld. CIT (A) and also raised an objection regarding the validity of initiation of proceedings, however, could not succeed. 3. Before us, the ld. A/R of the assessee has submitted that the AO while issuing the show cause notice dated 14.12.2016 has not specified under which limb of the provisions of section 271AAB(1) the penalty was sought to be levied. The AO has only mentioned the penalty under section 271AAB in the show cause notice which does not satisfy the requirement of law. The ld. A/R has referred to the show cause notice and submitted that it is evident that the said notice was issued in a casual manner without specifying the limb/clause of section 271AAB(1) of the Act which is applicable in the case of the assessee. Therefore, the AO failed to make the assessee known the ground which the assessee has to meet and consequently the principles of natural justice is violated. The ld. A/R has further submitted that another show cause noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted that the ld. CIT (A) has committed an error by holding that the penalty under section 271AAB is mandatory in nature which is contrary to the decisions of this Tribunal on this point. 4. On the other hand, the ld. D/R has submitted that the assessee has duly filed his reply to the show cause notice and claimed that since the assessee has already declared the said income in the return of income filed under section 139(1) of the Act and accordingly not entitled to immunity from the levy of penalty under section 271AAB. The assessee in his reply referred to the provisions of section 271AAB(1)(a) of the Act and thus no prejudice was caused to the assessee if specific clause has not been mentioned in the show cause notice issued by the AO. The ld. D/R has further submitted that the AO has finally levied the penalty under section 271AAB(1)(a) of the Act and, therefore, the definite finding is given by the AO while passing the penalty order. He has further contended that the assessee has surrendered the undisclosed business income in his statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act and also reiterated the same stand in the affidavit filed by the assessee subseque ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ender made by the assessee himself is self-explanatory to the nature of income surrendered by the assessee. The ld. D/R has contended that the assessee has participated in the penalty proceedings and has not raised any objection or has demanded before the AO about his unawareness of the nature of default attracting the levy of penalty under section 271AAB. It is not the case of the assessee that the disclosure was taken under coercion and further the assessee has offered the said amount to tax in the return of income which rules out the scope of any pressure or coercion by the search team for taking disclosure from the assessee. Thus the objection raised by the assessee that the AO has not specified the clause under section 271AAB(1) of the Act has no merit when the assessee himself has explained the nature of income disclosed and surrendered and also paid the tax on the same. The ld. D/R has submitted that as per the explanatory note of Finance Bill, 2012, the provisions of section 271AAB are mandatory in nature and the AO has no discretion but the assessee shall pay the penalty in addition to the tax on the undisclosed income surrendered under section 132(4) of the Act. He has re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions. In the latest decision in the case of Shri Padam Chand Pungliya vs. ACIT (supra) the Tribunal has again considered this issue in para 5 to 5.1 as under :- 5. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. During the course of search and seizure action under section 132 conducted on 4th September, 2013, the assessee disclosed income of ₹ 5,01,66,717/- in his statement made under section 132(4) of the Act. The said disclosure was made in pursuant to the entries in the seized documents. The details of the undisclosed income surrendered by the assessee are as under :- a) Unexplained expenditure on house construction 2,44,63,575/- b) Undisclosed stock 1,91,24,877/- c) Undisclosed jewellery 60,16,265/- d) Undisclosed debtors/advances 5,62,000/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d an income of ₹ 10,02,00,000/- in pursuant to the entries of advances given for purchase of land recorded in the pocket diary which was found and seized during the course of search and seizure action. This is year of search and the financial year would end on 31st March, 2015. However, the assessee disclosed this amount of ₹ 10,02,00,000/- based on the entries in the diary regarding investment in real estate. The due date of filing of return of income under section 139(1) was 30th September, 2015. It is undisputed fact that the assessee is an Individual and was not maintaining regular books of account. Therefore, the transactions recorded in the pocket diary found during the course of search itself would not lead to the presumption that the assessee would not have offered this income to tax if the search is not conducted on 30th October, 2014. Further, the entries in the diary itself do no not represent the income of the assessee during the year under consideration though the assessee was required to explain the source of investment in question and that source would be the income of the assessee. It is most likely that the investment in question was made from the unacc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er cent of the undisclosed income of the specified previous year, if such assessee- (i) in the course of the search, in a statement under sub-section (4) of section 132, does not admit the undisclosed income; and (ii) on or before the specified date- (A) declares such income in the return of income furnished for the specified previous year; and (B) pays the tax, together with interest, if any, in respect of the undisclosed income; (c) a sum 51 [computed at the rate of sixty per cent] of the undisclosed income of the specified previous year, if it is not covered by the provisions of clauses (a) and (b). 52 [(1A) The Assessing Officer may, notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act, direct that, in a case where search has been initiated under section 132 on or after the date on which the Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Bill, 2016 receives the assent of the President, the assessee shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to tax, if any, payable by him,- (a) a sum computed at the rate of thirty per cent of the undi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (A) not been recorded on or before the date of search in the books of account or other documents maintained in the normal course relating to such previous year; or (B) otherwise not been disclosed to the 54 [Principal Chief Commissioner or] Chief Commissioner or 54 [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner before the date of search; or (ii) any income of the specified previous year represented, either wholly or partly, by any entry in respect of an expense recorded in the books of account or other documents maintained in the normal course relating to the specified previous year which is found to be false and would not have been found to be so had the search not been conducted.] The section begins with the stipulation that the AO may direct the assessee shall pay by way of penalty if the conditions as prescribed under clauses (a) to (c) are satisfied. As per sub-section (3) of section 271AAB the provisions of section 274 and 275 as far as may be applied in relation to the penalty referred in this section which means that before imposing the penalty under sec. 271AAB, the AO has to issue a show cause notice and give a p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to 30% or more as against the discretion given to the AO as per the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act where the AO has the discretion to levy the penalty from 100% to 300% of the tax sought to be evaded. Thus the AO is duty bound to come to the conclusion that the case of the assessee is fit for levy of penalty under section 271AAB and then only the quantum of penalty being 10% or 20% or 30% has to be determined subject to the explanation of the assessee for the defaults. 5. Before we proceed further, the decisions relied upon by the ld. D/R are to be considered. In the case of Principal CIT vs. Sandeep Chandak Others (supra) the issue before the Hon ble High Court was the defect in the notice issued under section 271AAB on account of mentioning wrong provision of the Act being 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Hon ble High Court after considering the fact that the show cause notice issued by the AO though mentions section 271(1) in the caption of the said notice, however, the body of the show cause notice clearly mentions section 271AAB, which was fully comprehended by the assessee as reveals in the reply filed by the assessee against the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. We have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. During the appeal hearing, the Ld. A.R. vehemently argued that the A.O. has levied the penalty under the impression that the levy of penalty in the case of admission of income u/s 132(4) is mandatory. The Ld. A.R. further stated that penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act is not mandatory but discretionary. The provisions of section 271AAB of the Act is parimateria with that of section 158BFA of the Act relating to block assessment and accordingly argued that the levy of penalty under section 271AAB is not mandatory but discretionary. When there is reasonable cause, the penalty is not exigible. The Ld. A.R. taken us to the section 271AAB of the Act and also section 158BFA(2) of the Act and argued that the words used in section 271AAB of the Act and the words used in section 158BFA(2) of the Act are identical. Hence, argued that the penalty section 271AAB of the Act penalty is not automatic and it is on the merits of each case. For ready reference, we reproduce hereunder section 158BFA (2) of the Act and section 271AAB of the Act which reads as un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... than the amount of tax leviable but which shall not exceed three times the amount of tax so leviable in respect of the undisclosed income determined by the Assessing Officer under clause (c) of section 158BC: Provided that no order imposing penalty shall be made in respect of a person if- (i) such person has furnished a return under clause (a) of section 158BC; (ii) the tax payable on the basis of such return has been paid or, if the assets seized consist of money, the assessee offers the money so seized to be adjusted against the tax payable. (iii) Evidence of tax paid is furnished along with the return; and (iv) An appeal is not filed against the assessment of that part of income which is shown in the return: Provided further that the provisions of the preceding proviso shall not apply where the undisclosed income determined by the Assessing Officer is in excess of the income shown in the return and in such cases the penalty shall be imposed on that portion of undisclosed income determined which is in excess of the amount of undisclosed income shown in the return. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Accordingly we hold that the penalty u/s 271AAB is not mandatory but to be imposed on merits of the each case. Thus the Tribunal has held that the levy of penalty under section 271AAB is not mandatory but the AO has the discretion to take a decision and shall be based on judicious decision of the AO. Hence we fortify our view by the above decisions of Tribunal in case of ACIT vs. Marvel Associates. Thus the Tribunal has analyzed all the relevant provisions of the Act as well as various decisions on this point including the decision of Hon ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Sandeep Chandak, 405 ITR 648 (Allahabad) relied upon by the ld. D/R and then arrived at the conclusion that the penalty under section 271AAB is not mandatory but the AO has the discretion to take a decision and the same should be based on judicious decision of the AO. Accordingly following the earlier decision of this Tribunal in the case of Ravi Mathur vs. DCIT (supra), we hold that the levy of penalty under section 271AAB is not mandatory but the AO has a discretion after considering all the relevant aspects of the case and then to satisfy himsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g of Section 271AAB of the Act. Notice in our opinion was vague. Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of SSA s Emerald Meadows (supra) relying in its own judgment in the case of Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (supra) had held as under:- 2. This appeal has been filed raising the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether, omission if assessing officer to explicitly mention that penalty proceedings are being initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars or that for concealment of income makes the penalty order liable for cancellation even when it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the assessee had concealed income in the facts and circumstances of the case? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the penalty notice under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is bad in law and invalid despite the amendment of Section 271(1B) with retrospective effect and by virtue of the amendment, the assessing officer has initiated the penalty by properly recording the satisfaction for the same? (3) Whether on the facts and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... furnishing of incorrect particulars would not operate as res judicata in the penalty proceedings. It is open to the assessee to contest the proceedings on the merits. However, the validity of the assessment or reassessment in pursuance of which penalty is levied, cannot be the subject matter of penalty proceedings. The assessment or reassessment cannot be declared invalid in the penalty proceedings . View taken by the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the above judgment was indirectly affirmed by the Hon ble Apex Court, when it dismissed an SLP filed by the Revenue against the judgment in the case of SSA s Emerald Meadows (supra), specifically observing that there was no merits in the petition filed by the Revenue. Considering the above cited judgments, we hold that the notice issued u/s.274 r.w.s. 271AAB of the Act, reproduced by us at para 5 above was not valid. Ex-consequenti, the penalty order is set aside. 6. Since we have set aside the penalty order for the impugned assessment year, the appeal filed by the Revenue has become infructuous. In view of the decision of the Chennai Bench (supra), the show cause notice issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with section 271AAB of the Income-tax Act you are liable for penalty on assessed undisclosed income. You are hereby requested to appear before me at my office Room No. 103 (NA), N.C.R.B., Jaipur at 11.00 A.M. on 25.08.2016 and show cause why an order imposing penalty on you should not be made u/s 271AAB r.w.s. 274 of the Income tax Act, 1961. If you do not wish to avail yourself of this opportunity of being heard in person or through Authorized Representative, you may reply to show cause in writing on or before the said date which will be considered before any such order is made. Yours faithfully, Sd/- ( Devangi Swarnkar ) Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur. Thus it is clear that both the show cause notices issued by the AO for initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271AAB are very vague and silent about the default of the assessee and further the amount of undisclosed income on which the penalty was proposed to be levied. Even the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of Shevata Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd in DBIT Appeal No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Date : 15-05-2017. To, Name M/s/Shri/Smt. Mukund Sharan Goyal Address 303, Awadh , Nemisagar Colony, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. PAN ABIPG 1414D Whereas in the course of assessment proceedings for the AY 2015-16 penalty proceeding were initiated u/s 274 and 275 read with the section u/s 271AAB of the IT Act and a penalty notice was issued accordingly. You are hereby allowed further opportunity of being heard and to show cause why an order imposing penalty on you should not be made u/s 271AAB of the Income-tax Act 1961. If you do not wish to avail yourself of this opportunity of being heard in person or through Authorized Representative, you may show cause in writing on or before the date fixed for hearing on 25.05.2017 at 11.00 AM which will be considered before any such order(s) is/are made. (Kamlesh Kumar Meena) Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax Central Circle-2, Jaipur. NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271 READ WITH SECTION 271AAB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. Date : 14-12-2016. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s referred to the relevant disclosure made by the assessee in the statement recorded under section 132(4) and submitted that it is a clear case of obtaining the disclosure from the assessee without any incriminating material disclosing any undisclosed income. The alleged seized material are nothing but containing some imaginary names and details and some figures which were specifically stated by the assessee in his statement. The ld. A/R has thus contended that the said seized documents are nothing but dumb and deaf papers without indicating any undisclosed income of the assessee. The assessee has surrendered the income just to buy peace and avoid unnecessary litigation, however, there is no iota of evidence that the surrendered income was undisclosed income of the assessee. All the entries in the seized documents are written against some imaginary names and figures and do not represent any actual transaction but only for sake of obtaining the surrender from the assessee, the search party has forced upon these documents on the assessee. The ld. A/R has referred to the CBDT Circular No. 286 of 2003 dated 10th March, 2003 and submitted that the CBDT expressed its concern about the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the same are dumb written names, places and figures as no further enquiry/investigation was made. The surrender of current years income by assessee of ₹ 24,58,50,000/- was just to buy peace by assessee which also he categorically stated in statement u/s 132(4). Thus it is only by admission of assessee under undue pressure by the search team on which the assessee included the said amount in return filed as his income of current year and paid tax thereon. There is no iota of evidence that surrendered income was undisclosed income. The revenue authorities have exerted undue pressure and obtained the surrender of income from the assessee. From the assessment order it is clear that the assessee has maintained a separate diary for the income surrendered during the course of search. The diary was also maintaining as books of accounts. In this diary all the entries are for the current financial year i.e. from 16.01.2015 to 07.03.2015 and the date of search 11.03.2015. All the transactions are recorded. Nothing adverse was found which suggest that the assessee s intention was not to disclose the income recorded in the seized documents. The sett ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of search total gold jewellery/ornaments of net weight of 4548.450 gms was found from bedroom of assessee. That total weight of gold jewellery/ornaments as per wealth tax return of assessee s wife Smt. Rekha Goyal was 4236 gms which also include 93 gms jewellery of M/s. Goyal Fashions Pvt. Ltd. (A group company). Copy of wealth tax return was filed during the course of assessment proceedings. Thus the excess gold jewellery of 312 gms was determined by the department. Out of said excess jewellery of 312 gms the credit of 100 gms jewellery was given to assessee as per CBDT circular and remaining 200 gms of jewellery valued at ₹ 5,19,125/- was offered by assessee as his additional business income in his return of income filed for the A.Y. 2015-16. In this connection it is submitted that the said 200 gms jewellery pertained to two grandsons of the assessee and sons of Shri Ashish Goyal i.e. Shri Ashutosh Goyal and Shri Radhav Goyal. It is submitted that the said jewellery items were personal items of the family members and holding is very old and reasonable looking to the status of family. The said items were received from both sides of relatives and friends at the time of marri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d affidavit, it has been submitted by the ld. A/R that officers of the department did not make any further enquiries and there was no corroborating evidences. Suffice is to mention that the assessee on the basis of the incriminating material has voluntarily, surrendered undisclosed business income on account of such advances and the departmental officers are not required further to prove anything, as there is no such requirement in law. It is humbly submitted that in reply to question no. 31 recorded under section 132(4), it has been stated by the assessee that he was not having the addresses of the persons in whose names amounts were recorded in the pocket note book, found and seized during the course of search. Thus, if the assessee has not provided the addresses of the person to whom advances have been made for cash and for land purchase, it could be presumed that the revelations of their addresses could do more harm to him and it would not be in his interest. Now, the assessee cannot take the plea that no further inquiries were made by the department. It would not be out of place to mention here that in his reply to question no. 31 and 32 in his statement recorded on oath, it h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee from mischief of penal proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. It was further held that where offer of surrender of certain amount received as share application money was made by the assessee in view of detection made by AO in search conducted in case of assessee s sister concern, said surrender of income not being voluntary in nature, authorities below were justified in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, the ld. D/R submitted that in view of the above submission, it is crystal clear that the total undisclosed income declared by the assessee U/s 132(4) of the Act is squarely covered by the definition of undisclosed income as reproduced above. Otherwise, it is difficult to comprehend under what conditions and situations, the income declared by the assessee would fall under the definition of undisclosed income . He has referred to the definition of Undisclosed Income as per Explanation to section 271AAB of the Act. Hence, he submitted that the penalty imposed by the AO u/s 271AAB of the Act may be sustained and the appeal of the assessee may be dismissed. 8. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. Out of the four items representing the undisclosed income disclosed by the assessee during the statement under section 132(4) of the IT Act, only two items, namely, expenditure on house construction and undisclosed advances are based on the seized material. The other two items being representing excess stock and undisclosed jewellery are not based on the seized documents but these are based on the valuation of the stock as well as the jewellery found at the time of search and seizure action. First, we take up the undisclosed income on account of expenditure on house construction of ₹ 2,44,63,575/-, the relevant alleged seized document in this respect are the entries in the diary on 04.04.2013, 14.04.2013, 28.04.2013, 28.05.2013 and 01.06.2013. It is pertinent to note that all these notings are done during the month of April, one in May and one in 1st June, 2013. The construction of house is not a task to be completed from 1st April, 2013 to 1st June, 2013, that too when the alleged expenditure of ₹ 2,44,63,575/- was incurred in respect of various articles and construction materials. It appears from the sei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tries/notings in the seized documents represents the real transactions/assets purchased by the assessee or in the possession of the assessee. The possession of the asset was a matter of fact at the time of search and in the absence of such asset either found or otherwise discovered during the course of search and seizure, these entries in the seized documents would not constitute undisclosed income on account of expenditure in construction of the house. Similarly, the entries in respect of advances of ₹ 5,62,000/- also very vague and ambiguous not giving any details about the purpose or date on which these advances were given. Only a date is mentioned at the bottom of the page but not against each and every entry of the page. Further, we note that the department has not tried to ascertain the full particulars of the alleged persons whose names are noted in the seized documents against certain amounts which are considered as advances given by the assessee. It is pertinent to note that without ascertaining the full particulars of the persons in whose names the entries are made, it is possible that all these names are only imaginary and not the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been found by way of any entry in the books of accounts or other documents, and which has not been recorded before the date of search in the books of accounts or other documents maintained by the assessee in the normal course and not vice-versa. We are also conscious of the fact that there are deeming provisions in terms of section 69 and 69B wherein such amounts may be deemed as income in absence of satisfactory explanation. In our view, the deeming fiction so envisaged under Section 69 and Section 69B cannot be extended and applied automatically in context of section 271AAB. It is a well-settled legal proposition that the deeming provisions are limited for the purposes that have been brought on the statute book and have therefore to be applied in the context of provisions wherein they have been brought on the statue book and not otherwise. In the instant case, the deeming provisions contained in section 69 and section 69B could have been applied in the context of bringing to tax such investments to tax in the quantum proceedings, though the fact of the matter is that the AO has not even invoked the said deeming provisions in the quantum proceedings. Therefore, even on this accou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... artment has not given the benefit of CBDT Instruction No. 1916 for all the family members of the assessee. He has relied upon the decision of Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal dated 30.05.2019 in case of Shri Vimal Chand Surana vs. DCIT in ITA No. 304/JP/2018. 10. The ld. D/R has objected to the said claim of the assessee and submitted that the jewellery already declared in the Wealth-tax return was excluded while computing the excess jewellery found during the search. Therefore, further benefit of CBDT Instruction cannot be given. 11. At the outset, we note that when the jewellery was found at the residence of the assessee and also accepted as belonging to the family members as the department has already allowed the credit of the jewellery declared in the wealth-tax return by the family members then the benefit of the CBDT Instruction No. 1916 dated 11.05.1994 shall also be given in respect of all family members. An identical issue has been considered by this Tribunal in case of Shri Vimal Chand Surana vs. DCIT in ITA No. 304/JP/2018 vide order dated 30.05.2019 in para 17 as under :- 17. We further note that ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CBDT, looking to such customs prevailing throughout India, in one way or the another, came out with this Circular and we accordingly are of the firm opinion that it should also mean that to the extent of the aforesaid jewellery, found in possession of the varoius persons, even source cannot be questioned. It is certainly 'Stridhan' of the woman and normally no question at least to the said extent can be made. However, if the authorized officers or/and the Assessing Officers, find jewellery beyond the said weight, then certainly they can question the source of acquisation of the jewellery and also in appropriate cases, if no proper explanation has been offered, can treat the jewellery beyond the said limit as unexplained investment of the person with whom the said jewellery has been found. 13. Admittedly, looking to the status of the family and the jewellery found in possesssion of four ladies, was held to be reasonable and therefore, the authorized officers, in the first instance, did not seize the said jewellery as the same being within the tolerable limit or the limits prescribed by the Board and thus, in our view, subsequent addition is also no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
