TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 1079
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the appellant, a search under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, was conducted in her premises on 02.01.2003, in which, 4582 grams of jewellery was found; and out of the same, 1387 grams belonged to the appellant; and she explained the source of the same as if 750 grams was received from her parents, 250 grams from her mother-in-law and 350 grams from her sister residing abroad. Based on the materials recovered, the proceedings under section 158BD was initiated and a notice was issued, to which the appellant filed her return admitting undisclosed income 'nil'. Upon scrutiny of the same, the assessment was completed under section 158BD r/w section 143(3) on 28.02.2007, determining the undisclosed income at Rs. 4,75,780/-, by addi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the CIT(A), with respect to addition of Rs. 4,07,880/- representing the value of 887 grams of jewellery, as undisclosed income of the appellant. Placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. P.Mohanakala [(2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC)], the learned counsel submitted that the re-appreciation of evidence and substitution of the findings by the High Court was impermissible and that, when once explanation offered by the assessee was found unsatisfactory, the value of the jewellery was to be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee. Thus, according to the learned counsel, there is no requirement to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact arrived at by the authorities below. 6.Heard....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reason to interfere with the orders of the lower authorities." 9.Admittedly, the CBDT, vide Instruction No.1916 dated 11.05.1996 has directed not to seize jewellery to the extent of 500 grams in the case of married women. Further, the appellant did not produce any bills / books of accounts / document, except her oral statement, to substantiate her claim that the entire jewels belonged to her. In such circumstances, this court finds no good reason to disagree with the findings so rendered by the Tribunal. 10.It is also to be noted that the concurrent finding of fact arrived at by all the authorities below cannot be slightly interfered with by the High Court. In this context, it would be relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble ....