1992 (8) TMI 152 - AT - Income Tax

Revenue's successful appeal reinstates addition under Income-tax Act; Tribunal finds ownership discrepancies.

Income-Tax Officer. Versus Rajmal Lakhichand.

Revenue's appeal against the deletion of an addition under section 69A of the Income-tax Act was successful. The Tribunal found discrepancies in the ... Business Premises, Central Excise Issues: Revenue's appeal against deletion of addition under section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961Analysis:1. The Central Excise authorities conducted a raid at the business premises and seized gold ornaments exceeding the quantity recorded in the stock register.2. The Income-tax Officer added the value of the excess gold ornaments as unexplained investment under section 69A of the Act.3. The CIT(A) considered documents submitted by the assessee to establish that the ornaments belonged to someone else and were not accounted for in the books.4. The revenue relied on the Supreme Court decision in a similar case involving seizure of goods to support their argument for addition under section 69A.5. The CIT(A) held that since the ownership of the gold ornaments did not belong to the assessee, the addition could not be sustained and deleted it.6. The Tribunal had to determine whether the CIT(A) rightly accepted the explanation that the gold ornaments did not belong to the assessee.Detailed Analysis:1. The partner of the assessee firm explained that the seized gold ornaments were received as samples for approval from an individual named Mr. Thadeshwar. However, discrepancies in the explanation raised doubts about the ownership and source of the ornaments.2. The CIT(A) admitted documents supporting the claim that the ornaments belonged to Mr. Thadeshwar, but the revenue argued that the explanation was insufficient based on the facts presented.3. The Tribunal scrutinized the evidence, including a xerox copy of a chit mentioning the weight and types of ornaments, but found inconsistencies in the explanation provided by the assessee.4. The Tribunal noted that the seized ornaments did not match the items mentioned in the chit, casting doubt on the credibility of the explanation.5. Witness statements from the partner, servant, and clerk were deemed untrustworthy, and the delayed submission of the explanation further raised suspicions about its authenticity.6. Contradictions in the explanation, such as the mixing of alleged sample jewelry with the actual stock, led the Tribunal to conclude that the seized ornaments belonged to the assessee and were rightfully added as undisclosed investment.7. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the revenue's appeal, canceling the CIT(A)'s order and restoring the addition made by the Income-tax Officer under section 69A.This detailed analysis highlights the discrepancies in the explanation provided by the assessee regarding the ownership and source of the seized gold ornaments, leading to the Tribunal's decision to uphold the addition under section 69A of the Income-tax Act.