TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1994 (7) TMI 126
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 69 being value of gold ornaments and silver coins respectively." 3. The facts of the case can be extracted from the assessment order as under: "5. On 27th Oct., 1974, the Police Department at Khargone found from the person and possession of Shri Chhaganlal gold ornaments weighing 4 kgs. 650 gms. and 222 silver coins. Shri Chhaganlal was moving on the road and he stated that he was going from Khargone to Bishthan. A case was lodged by the Police in the Court on the plea that the gold seized was out of certain thefts. As the criminal charges could not be established by the police department, the Court ordered release of all the gold. In spite of efforts by the Department to take possession of gold, it could not do so. The gold was rele....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th Act, 1976. In this connection, it is observed that the declarations were made by the 2 coparceners in the status of HUF, i.e., their respective smaller HUFs. The immunity available under the Act is limited to the declarants and the Department is free to inquire into the genuineness of the ownership of the assets in the hands of the bigger HUF. It is also worth noting that the declarations were made for the asst. yrs. 1957-58 and 1958-59 and the smaller HUFs were not in existence at all. The smaller HUFs came into existence only after partition claimed to be effected in the year 1972. Therefore, also, it is clear that the gold ornaments/assets belonged to the assessee. The assessee further claimed that a partial partition of the busine....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....indings of the CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. The learned representative for the Revenue has supported the addition. According to him, the gold ornaments and the silver coins belonged to the assessee HUF. He has further submitted that the declarations made by Chhaganlal and Onkarlal under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income & Wealth Act, 1976, were made after the assets were found by the police. Moreover, these declarations pertain to the assessment years when the smaller HUFs of the said two persons were not in existence. He has also pointed out that the application for partition of the HUF was also filed after assets were seized by the police. According to the learned representative for the Revenue, it is not establi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... above, it is evident that the bigger HUF had claimed partition on 6th Nov., 1972. The claim of partition was accepted by the Department and the ITO had passed an order recognizing the same. A copy of that order has been placed on record. It is relevant to mention here that the name of the smaller HUF Nathulal is the same Nathulal Gangaram as that of the bigger HUF. Shri Chhaganlal and Onkarlal are not the members of the smaller HUF, namely, Nathulal Gangaram. Since the assets in question were seized from the possession of Chhaganlal and it was claimed that they belonged to Chhaganlal and Onkarlal, the addition could not be made in the hands of the bigger HUF or even in the hands of the smaller HUF of Nathulal Gangaram. That being so, we fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the addition sustained by the CIT(A) also deserves to be deleted. The contention of the assessee was strongly opposed by the learned Departmental Representative. Having heard the rival submissions, we are unable to persuade ourselves to accept the assessee's stand. It appears that the assessment was completed after directions were issued by the IAC under s. 144B of the IT Act, 1961. The assessee's contention with regard to limitation is mainly based on the submission that the assessee did not file any objections before the ITO against the draft assessment order. It is admitted that no such plea was raised before the Revenue authorities. Moreover, the contention that no objections were actually filed before the ITO required investigation/ver....