Appeal Dismissed Over Unexplained Jewellery Ownership

The appeal was filed against the order of CIT(A) regarding unexplained jewellery owned by the assessee's daughters-in-law. The appellant argued that the prescribed procedure was not followed, as no statements were recorded from the appellant or daughters-in-law. Despite providing details about their income-tax status, gifts, and jewellery possession, the CIT(A) sustained additions to the declared jewellery. The Assessing Officer was criticized for not considering points raised by a father of one daughter-in-law. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the appellant's appeal on 15th September 2017.

---

---

Issues:
1. Procedure followed in determining unexplained jewellery owned by daughters-in-law.
2. Failure to consider points raised by the father of one of the daughters-in-law.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the order of CIT(A) concerning the unexplained jewellery owned by the assessee's daughters-in-law. The appellant contended that the CIT(A) erred by not following the prescribed procedure. It was argued that no statements were recorded from the appellant or the daughters-in-law regarding the jewellery. Details were provided about the daughters-in-law being income-tax assesses, receiving gifts, and possessing jewellery, which were not adequately considered by the CIT(A). Reference was made to a Board Circular from May 1994 regarding the treatment of gold possessed by married women as "Streedhan." Despite these arguments, the CIT(A) sustained additions to the declared jewellery, which the appellant challenged as not being in accordance with the prescribed procedure.

2. The Assessing Officer was also criticized for not considering the points raised by the father of one of the daughters-in-law as per the rules. Despite the appellant's contentions, the appeal hearing took place on 14.09.2017 without the appellant's presence, leading to an ex-parte hearing where only the revenue side was heard. The Tribunal examined the CIT(A)'s order and found no issues with it, ultimately confirming the order. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed on 15th September 2017.

---