Tribunal directs inclusion of fair market value of unaccounted jewellery in total income

Naveen Bansal (HUF) Versus Income-tax Officer

Naveen Bansal (HUF) Versus Income-tax Officer - TMI Issues Involved:
1. Whether the assessee-HUF was in possession of the jewellery as on 31.03.2005.
2. Whether the jewellery was acquired by the assessee-HUF from late Shri Dharampal Bansal.
3. Whether the transactions with M/s M.R. Jewellers were genuine or accommodation entries.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Possession of Jewellery as on 31.03.2005:

The assessee-HUF filed its return declaring total income including LTCG from the sale of gold jewellery. The AO disbelieved the acquisition and sale of jewellery, adding the sale proceeds to the total income. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's order, finding no evidence of the source or acquisition of the jewellery, and noting suspicious circumstances around the filing of the wealth-tax return.

The Tribunal considered the evidences provided by the assessee, including the wealth-tax assessment order and a valuation report. The Tribunal found that the wealth-tax order was passed by an officer without jurisdiction and in undue haste, suggesting it was procured to support the income-tax claim. The valuation report lacked a date, and the valuer's statement indicated no proper record was maintained. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded there was no reliable evidence that the assessee owned the jewellery as on 31.03.2005, determining the jewellery's existence came to light around 30.03.2006.

2. Acquisition of Jewellery from Late Shri Dharampal Bansal:

The assessee claimed to have received about 250 tolas of gold jewellery from his father, supported by statements from the assessee and his mother. The AO and CIT(A) found these statements to be self-serving and lacking corroborative evidence. The Tribunal noted the absence of detailed records and the inconsistency with the financial position disclosed by the assessee. It held that the assessee failed to provide satisfactory evidence of the jewellery's acquisition from late Shri Dharampal Bansal.

However, acknowledging the custom in Hindu families, the Tribunal found it reasonable to assume that the assessee could have received 1000 grams of jewellery from his father and on other occasions. The remaining jewellery was considered unaccounted, and its fair market value was to be included in the assessee's total income.

3. Transactions with M/s M.R. Jewellers:

The AO deemed the transactions with M/s M.R. Jewellers as bogus, citing inconsistencies in the statements of the jeweller and the assessee. The Tribunal, having concluded the jewellery's existence around 30.03.2006, found the dates of sale in harmony with this finding. It applied Section 69A, determining that the fair market value of the jewellery at the time it was found to be owned by the assessee would be the same as the sale proceeds, obviating the need for capital gains computation.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, directing the AO to modify the order by including the fair market value of the unaccounted jewellery in the assessee's total income, while acknowledging the possession of 1000 grams of jewellery as explained.