Jewellery disclosure and revised return rules: claim accepted where family ownership and CBDT limits were established.

Jewellery disclosed in the return could not be added as unexplained when the assessee later showed, through affidavits and supporting material, that it belonged to family members and fell within CBDT-prescribed limits. The Tribunal held that a claim is not barred merely because no revised return was filed, and appellate authorities may entertain it where the relevant facts are already on record. It further applied the principle that there is no estoppel against law, so tax can be levied only in accordance with law and not because of an erroneous or precautionary disclosure. The addition was deleted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the addition made on account of jewellery offered in the return could be sustained when the assessee later established that the jewellery belonged to family members and was within the CBDT-prescribed limits, despite no revised return having been filed.

Analysis: The assessee had explained during the search and assessment proceedings that the jewellery did not belong to him, and placed affidavits and other material to show that it belonged to family members. The Tribunal held that a claim is not barred merely because it was not withdrawn through a revised return, and that appellate authorities can entertain such a claim when the relevant facts are already on record. It further held that there is no estoppel against law and that tax can be levied only in accordance with law, not merely because an assessee made an erroneous or precautionary disclosure. The Tribunal also accepted that jewellery within the CBDT instruction-based limits could not be treated as unexplained in the assessee's hands.

Conclusion: The addition was unsustainable and was deleted. The assessee's appeal was allowed.

---