AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (7) TMI 647
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....made by Smt. Chandra Kanta Pandit?" 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties on these questions. 3. The appeal is directed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur dated 28-2-2001. 4. The subject-matter of the appeal relates to assessment of block years 1988-89 to 1998-99 which took place pursuant to search and seizure operations under section 132 of the Act which were carried out on 12-11-1997 at the residential premises of the assessee at Moti Doongri, Jaipur. 5. As the dispute in this appeal relates to the additions made by the Assessing Officer in respect of jewellery weighing 1435 gms. found at the time of search and in possession of the assessee and his family members at his residential premises as well as from the bank locker of Smt. Sarita Devi, wife and Smt. Tara Devi, mother of the assessee and on account of entries in certain loose papers found from the assessee, the Assessing Officer after allowing the credit of the jewellery declared by the ladies in their respective wealth-tax returns weighing 794.15 grams, has treated the remaining jewellery weighing 640.85 grams as unexplained jewellery in the hands of the assessee and a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessment year which has been declared in the wealth-tax returns submitted up to 1985-86, the CIT(A) had given benefit of the circular by excluding 450 grams additionally in the hands of the assessee, his son and unmarried daughter. The Tribunal, however reached its finding on two-fold grounds. Firstly, it accepted the explanation submitted by the assessee about acquisition of possession of gold jewellery and silver in excess of what was declared in W.T. returns of two ladies. Secondly, it also referred to the circular issued by CBDT. It was found by the Tribunal that there is no dispute that assessee and his wife also in their statement at the time of search on 12-11-1997 told that the jewellery was received in the marriage and some jewellery was also received in other ceremonies from time to time. The Tribunal also found that the benefit of CBDT Instructions dated 11-5-1994 was not allowed to two ladies namely, Smt. Sarita Devi and Smt. Tara Devi, mother of the assessee on the ground that the said instructions is not applicable in the case of a person, who is being assessed to wealth-tax and therefore, the exemption was allowed only to the extent of gold ornaments and jeweller....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ficer as well as CIT(A), and the Tribunal, which are perceiving that the exclusion has not been found merely on the basis of circular of CBDT, but it also accepted the explanation submitted by the assessee, which primarily relates to the facts of the case that two ladies were assessed for wealth-tax in 1995-96 (sic) and declaration of the wealth is only in respect of such jewellery which was in their possession which they acquired on certain ceremonies, occasion of marriage of the brother by the wife of the assessee. Looking to the status of the family, the Tribunal found explanation to be plausible for the income in the hands of the family. These jewellery have not been treated to be investment as undisclosed income of the assessee, therefore, it may not be the income received in the hands of the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, notwithstanding one of the reasons is not sustainable, the finding is not required to be disturbed. 12. Coming to the second question referred to above, the contention of the learned counsel for the Revenue is that the Tribunal has not interpreted and appreciated the evidence before it in arriving at its conclusion that the assessee has disch....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f land deal made on behalf of Smt. Chandra Kanta Pandit. 15. Having perused the three loose papers, it appears to us that the finding recorded by the Tribunal about the non-appearance of Chandra Kanta Pandit in the case of assessee is a finding based on appreciation of evidence which does not stand vitiated by perversity nor it can be said to be partly relevant or partly irrelevant consideration or not founded on the material on record. 16. Undoubtedly, non-appearance of Smt. Chandra Kanta Pandit may be one of the factors which has also relevance and can be taken into consideration but it is not possible to hold as a matter of law that every material on record must be discarded merely because of non-appearance of Smt. Chandra Kanta Pandit before the Assessing Officer and it would render all other materials unreliable and incredible and not relevant and on that basis, finding cannot be reached. In fact, in the letter submitted by the assessee, which has been quoted by the Assessing Officer in his order, gives a complete and comprehensive picture and explain the material which is placed in support of his explanation in this regard. If the status of Gopal Sharma who admits himse....