Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the alleged sale of jewellery shown by the assessee to the purchaser was a genuine transaction or an accommodation entry warranting addition, and whether the matter should be finally deleted or sent back for fresh verification.
Analysis: The declaration of jewellery under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme established possession and acquisition of the jewellery, but it did not by itself prove the genuineness of the subsequent sale. The affidavit of the purchaser was treated as insufficient standing alone unless supported by independent documentary evidence. The burden remained on the assessee to prove the actual sale and receipt of consideration, and the revenue authorities were not required to establish continued possession of the jewellery after the alleged sale. Earlier orders in other matters arising out of the same group were not treated as conclusive because the High Court had specifically required an independent examination in each case.
Conclusion: The issue was not finally decided on merits and the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to verify the genuineness of the jewellery sale and decide afresh after giving due opportunity to the assessee.