Tax Appeals Allowed for AYs 2005-07, Remanded for Fresh Exam; Addition Set Aside for AY 2007-08

The Tribunal allowed the appeals for AY 2005-06 and AY 2006-07 for statistical purposes, remanding the cases back to the AO for fresh examination. For AY 2007-08, the Tribunal set aside the addition related to unexplained jewelry, citing the reasonable possession of jewelry based on the assessee's financial status and customs of gifting. The order was pronounced on 30.06.2015.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Assessment of Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) as unexplained cash credits under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Unexplained investments in relation to jewelry found during a search action.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Assessment of Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) as Unexplained Cash Credits under Section 68:

The assessee, a Chartered Accountant and director, declared LTCG on the sale of shares of M/s Robinson Worldwide Trade Ltd and claimed it as exempt. However, a search and seizure action revealed that the purchase transaction was conducted through M/s DPS Shares & Securities Pvt. Ltd, whose director admitted to providing only accommodation bills and not actually purchasing the shares. Consequently, the Assessing Officer (AO) assessed the LTCG as income from other sources, deeming the transactions as sham. The AO also added 5% of the LTCG as charges for obtaining bogus LTCG.

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] confirmed the additions, treating the amount as unexplained cash credits under Section 68. The assessee appealed, arguing that the shares were sold through a legitimate process, with sale proceeds received via account payee cheque and delivery confirmed by the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE). The assessee contended that the statements by the directors of M/s DPS Shares & Securities Pvt. Ltd were self-serving.

The Tribunal, referencing a similar case ("Smt. Rooplata Jain vs. ACIT"), noted that the tax authorities should have examined the evidences provided by the assessee more thoroughly. The Tribunal decided to set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remand the case back to the AO for fresh examination, instructing the AO to consider the Tribunal's decision in the case of "Shri Arvind M Kariya."

2. Unexplained Investments in Relation to Jewelry Found During a Search Action:

During a search operation, jewelry weighing 1798 grams was found at the assessee's premises. The AO asked the assessee to explain the source of the jewelry, of which only a portion was accounted for in the returns. The AO treated jewelry worth Rs. 7,59,950 as explained and added the remaining Rs. 17,15,287 as unexplained income.

The CIT(A) granted additional relief for 160 grams of jewelry declared during earlier scrutiny assessments, reducing the unexplained amount to Rs. 15,91,447. The assessee appealed, citing the CBDT circular No.1916, which provides guidelines for non-seizure of jewelry based on family status and customs. The Tribunal referred to the Gujarat High Court's decision in "CIT vs. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain," which recognized the customary gifting of jewelry.

Considering the assessee's financial status and the customs of gifting jewelry, the Tribunal found the possession of jewelry worth Rs. 24.75 lakhs reasonable. The Tribunal concluded that the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was unsustainable and set aside the addition, allowing the appeal.

Conclusion:

The appeals for AY 2005-06 and AY 2006-07 were allowed for statistical purposes, with the cases remanded back to the AO for fresh examination. The appeal for AY 2007-08 was allowed, with the Tribunal setting aside the addition related to unexplained jewelry. The order was pronounced in the open court on 30.06.2015.

---