TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 515X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he 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. - Sh. N.K.Billaiya, Accountant Member And Sh. Anubhav Sharma, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Sh. V.K.Bindal, CA Sh. Saurabh Sharma, Adv. and Ms. Rinky Sharma, ITP For the Revenue : Ms. Rishpal Bedi, CIT- DR ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: The appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 29.12.2017 of CIT(A)-2, Gurgaon (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. FAA ) in Appeal No. 422/2016-17 arising out of an appeal before it against the order dated 14.12.2016 passed u/s 144 r.w.s 153A(1)(b) of the Income Tax A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by taking the following two related issues. a) Even when jewellery valued at Rs. 11,07,600/- was not seized at the time of search and, thus, accepted by Revenue as made from disclosed sources following the CBDT instructions No. 1916 dated 11/05/1994; and b) Even when the remaining jewellery valued at Rs. 24,60,870/- was family jewellery acquired by the assessee s father-in-law , Mr. Subhash Chander Mittal, and who had declared the equivalent sum as his undisclosed income in his return of income filed for the A.Y. 2014-15. Fact of the case is that the jewellery worth Rs. 35,68,470/- was found from locker No. 04 of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Chembur Branch, Mumbai maintained in the name of the appellant. Out of this jewellery worth Rs. 24,60,870/- was seized by the department. Before the Assessing Officer, the appellant did not give any details of the source of investment made in them but had only submitted that:- The assessee is a member of enlarged close knit family of Sh. Subhash Chander Mittal (PAN: ACDPM9847Q), who is also assessed with Centre Circle, Karnal. There are three ladies in the family and the jewellery is interchanged between all the mem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fit from Rice. Therefore, the argument of the appellant that this undisclosed income offered includes investment in jewellery of the appellant is not accepted. It is therefore clear that no amount of undisclosed income, declared for the jewellery found in the locker at Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Chembur Branch, Mumbai, held in the name of the appellant. Thus, the appellant s argument that the amount invested in acquiring jewellery of Rs. 35,68,470/- kept in the locker no. 04 of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Chembur Branch, Mumbai has been declared by her Father-in-law, is not correct and cannot be accepted. 4. The assessee is in appeal raising following grounds :- 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 35,68,470/- as undisclosed investment in jewellery- (a) even wlien the jewellery valued at Rs. 11,07,600/- was not seized at the time of search and, thus, accepted to that extent by the Revenue as made from the disclosed sources following the CBDT Instruction No. 1916 dated 11/05/1994; and (b) even when the remaining jewellery valued at Rs. 24,60,870/- was the family jewellery acquired by the assessee s father-in-la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SUBHASH CHANDER (Locker No . 81 P NB Kaithal ) Jewellery 1255654 1255654 - SUBHASH CHANDER (Locker No . 277 PNB Kaithal ) Jewellery 4027042 4027042 - NEERAJ M ITTAL Value Seized Released (Joint with other 8 family members ) Cash - - - Jewellery - - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14700000 Jewellery Seized Person wise S.C. Mittal 1255654 S.C. Mittal 4027042 Pallavi Mittal 1414638 Hitesh 2460870 Hitesh( Shruti Mittal) 3644840 Total 1,28,03,044 8. From the above , we find that Sh. S. C. Mittal, father-in-law of the assessee staying under the same roof, as the head of the joint family has disclosed an amount equal to the unaccounted jewellery seized belonging to the entire family as an undisclosed income. The vary purpose of centralization of the cases of the family members is to have a comprehensive understanding and determination of undisclosed income. In the instant case , since the undisclosed income determined tallies with the undisclosed income declared in the return, no separate addition in the hands of the assessee is called for . 7.1. Very categorically the Coordinate Bench has given a finding that jewellery ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
