2003 (10) TMI 605 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal rules in favor of assessee, deletes undisclosed jewellery addition for block assessment years

The Tribunal upheld the CIT (Appeals)'s decision to delete the addition of undisclosed investment in jewelleries, ruling in favor of the assessee for ... Unexplained investment Issues:- Addition of undisclosed investment in jewelleries in violation of Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules.Analysis:The case involved an appeal by the revenue against the deletion of an addition made in respect of undisclosed investment in jewelleries for block assessment years 1988-89 to 1998-99. The Assessing Officer had added the entire value of jewelleries found in a bank locker to the assessee's income as unexplained investment under section 69B of the Income Tax Act. The CIT (Appeals) subsequently deleted this addition, leading to the revenue's appeal before the Tribunal.The revenue contended that the assessee failed to prove ownership of the jewelleries by producing evidence, arguing that the affidavits submitted were self-serving statements and not reliable. However, the assessee's counsel relied heavily on the findings of the CIT (Appeals) and presented additional evidence to support the ownership claims. The counsel highlighted that due to locker defects, jewelleries were moved between family members, and some were kept for safekeeping by elderly relatives. It was also mentioned that the jewelleries were disclosed under the V.D.I. Scheme and were purchased between 1945 to 1965.After examining the seized jewelleries and the explanations provided, the Tribunal found that the jewelleries belonged to different family members, with each person's quantity of jewellery being insignificant and not exceeding 358 grams. The Tribunal referred to legal precedents stating that unless the deponent of an affidavit is cross-examined, the revenue cannot challenge the statement. Additionally, the Tribunal considered an instruction by the CBDT that ornaments up to 500 grams for a married lady should not be seized during a search, reflecting customary practices in Indian society.Based on the circumstances and evidence presented, the Tribunal upheld the CIT (Appeals)'s decision to delete the addition of the jewelleries as unexplained investment. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT (Appeals)'s order and dismissed the revenue's appeal, thereby concluding the case.