2004 (11) TMI 83

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion 254(2)?" The reference relates to the assessment year 1976-77. Briefly stated the facts involved in the present case are as under: The previous year ended on March 31, 1976. The respondent got married on November 25, 1975. In her return she had disclosed that she had jewellery worth Rs. 73,887 as on March 31, 1975, and in that respect had filed a confirmation from her father confirming the same, annexed with the list of jewellery at the time of her marriage. In the letter of confirmation it has been stated that she belonged to a large "Marwari" family with more than 100 members and as per their custom it was necessary for them to present gold and silver articles, utensils and small pieces of jewellery on major functions in the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....The assessee was found to be in possession and ownership of the aforesaid jewellery it was for her to explain the source. The source did not mean only the birthdays and her wedding when she had received the gifts from her relations. If she desired that she should not be made liable under the Income-tax Act for the aforesaid jewellery it was obligatory on her part that the full particulars of the relations and the gifts made by them should have been disclosed to the Income-tax Officer. The declaration of her father which we have carefully scanned does not meet the requirement of law. No doubt there is a custom prevalent in the society that near relations make gifts on the occasion of one's birthdays as well as wedding but this information is....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and restore the order passed by the Income-tax Officer." From a reading of the aforesaid order it appears that the Tribunal had appreciated the material and evidence on record and come to the conclusion that the onus was upon the respondent to prove the source of investment. However, while passing the order under section 254(2) of the Act the Tribunal has completely taken a somersault and recalled the order. Inasmuch as a specific finding has been given by the Tribunal regarding addition of Rs. 73,887 representing the value of jewellery, the source of which remained unexplained. In this view of the matter the Tribunal was not justified in recalling its order after November 13, 1986. In the case of....