TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (12) TMI 699
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....000-01 & 2001-02 (Part) 232 of 2011 (S.P.Sanjai) 13.02.2009 (modified order dated 03.01.2011) 43/Mds/2007 1991-92 to 2000-01 & 2001-02 (Part) 4. During the pendency of these appeals, the sole appellant in T.C.A.No.232 of 2011 namely, S.P.Sanjai died. Therefore, the legal representatives of the said appellant were impleaded as the second to fifth appellants in T.C.A.No.232 of 2011 vide order dated 17.12.2020 in C.M.P.No.13478 of 2020. 5. The impleaded fifth appellant in T.C.A.No.232 of 2011 namely, Mrs.S.P.Geetha who is the mother of the appellant in T.C.A.No.768 of 2009 and the deceased first appellant in T.C.A.No.232 of 2011, had also challenged the impugned order dated 13.02.2009 in I.T. (SS) A.No.0015/2007 in T.C.A.No.240 of 2011. T.C.A.No.240 of 2011 was allowed by this Court vide order dated 23.01.2019. 6. T.C.A.No.768 of 2009 was admitted on 31.08.2009 and the following questions were framed as substantial question of law to be answered:- i. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in reversing the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and restoring the addition of Rs.9,27,676/- made as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pted by the Appellate Commissioner. 10. The Income Tax Department thus filed separate appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal: B-Bench, Chennai [hereinafter referred to as "Appellate Tribunal"]. These Department's appeals were allowed and partly allowed by the Appellate Tribunal vide impugned common order dated 13.02.2009. 11. The Appellate Tribunal by its common order dated 13.02.2009 had partly allowed the appeals of the Revenue with the following observations: "13. We have heard both the parties and perused the relevant records available with us. We have thoroughly gone through the orders of the Assessing Officer and as well as the impugned orders on this issue in dispute. We are of the considered opinion that as per the record the assessees have been changing their explanations quite often which is nothing but an after thought only. The Assessing Officer has called upon the explanations of the assessees at various times on the acquisition and nature of possession of the jewellery found during the block assessment proceedings which the assessees took all together a different stand. The assessees have also not filed any documentary evidence supporting the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d have come to Smt.S.R.Thangamani Ammal and again the same might have been received by Shri.S.S.Rengachari. In the circumstances, the entire claim of the appellant cannot be accepted. Having regard to the facts of the case and taking into account the status of the appellant and his forefathers, I direct the Assessing Officer to accept the ancestral jewellery of 600 grams of gold jewellery and 12.75 carats of diamond jewellery as the appellant's share. Further, the appellant has debited the capital account for purchase of diamond and gold jewellery whereas the Assessing Officer wrongly verified only the trial balance. As seen from the capital account, there are debits for Rs.2,72,000/- on 14.09.2000 and for Rs.50,000/- on 01.01.2001 for purchase of the gold and diamond jewellery by the appellant. As there are debit entries in the capital account of the appellant which was filed before the Assessing Officer, I direct the Assessing Officer to accept the claim of purchase of gold jewellery and diamond jewellery. While doing so, the unexplained jewellery to be assessed is 164 gms. of gold jewellery [764 gms.(-) 600 gms] and the same is valued @ Rs.450/- per gm. which works out to Rs.73,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....11. 13. As far as the deceased first appellant in T.C.A.No.232 of 2011 namely, S.P.Sanjai, is concerned, the said appellant had filed a Miscellaneous Application after the Appellate Tribunal passed the impugned order dated 13.02.2009. The Appellate Tribunal modified its common order passed in I.T.A.(SS) No.43 of 2007 in the case of S.P.Sanjai, the deceased first appellant in T.C.A.No.232 of 2011 and passed thus impugned order dated 03.01.2011 which has been now impugned in T.C.A.No.232 of 2011. The operative portion of the aforesaid order impugned in T.C.A.No.232 of 2011 reads as under:- "7. We have perused the orders and heard the rival submissions. AO after examining assessee's explanation for 1751.95 grms, of gold jewellery and 35.05 ct. of diamond jewellery, as belonging to his wife Smt.Kaladevi, had accepted such explanation to the extent of 1000 gms, and 23 ct. respectively, leaving a balance of 751.95 grms. of gold and 12.05 ct. of diamond jewellery. As per the CIT(A), the quantum of jewellery to be explained was 1035.95 gms, of gold and 17.05 carets of diamond against 751.95 gms and 12.05 carets, respectively considered by the AO. For this, he aggregated 284 gms....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pinion that probable disposal of jewellery by the forefathers of the assessee could never be ruled out. At the best the assessee would have received 1/4th of the total possible quantity of 1215.20 gms. of gold jewellery and 20.375 ct. of diamond jewellery. In the circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the ancestral gold jewellery which assessee could have received could be estimated at 300 gms of gold jewellery and 10 ct. of diamond jewellery. 8. Vis-à-vis the purchase of jewellery of 300 gms. claimed to be made out of balance money with the assessee from advance of Rs.50 lakhs received earlier by him from the proposed sale of property, we find that the assessee has not been able to produce any evidence for the purchase. Nevertheless, in our opinion, in the circumstances of the case, we can consider that 150 grms. of gold jewellery to have been purchased by the assessee out of the balances available with him. Thus, out of the total gold jewellery of 1035.95 gms. we can consider 450 gms. to have been explained by the assessee, leaving a balance of 585.95 gms. as unexplained. Similarlyagainst 12.05 ct. of diamond jewellery we can consider 10 ct. as expl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt to the sale agreement with R.V.Deshmuk's Wife and Shanmugam; and (c) part from the marriage gifts; and (d) remaining from their in-laws during the birthday of their respective children. 21. The appellant in T.C.A.No.768 of 2009 and the deceased first appellant in T.C.A.No.232 of 2011 along with their mother the impleaded fifth appellant in T.C.A.No.232 of 2011 had suffered adverse Assessment Orders dated 31.01.2003, 20.01.2003 and 21.01.2003 respectively under Section 158BD read with Section 158BC and 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as detailed below: T.C.A.No. Assessment Order dated Assessment Year Previous Year Section under which the assessment is made 768 of 2009 (S.P.Karthick) 31.01.2003 Block 1991-92 to 2000-01 and A.Y. 2001-02 (Part) Block 1991-92 to 2000-01 and A.Y. 2001-02 (Part) 158BD r.w.s. 158BC & 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 232 of 2011 (S.P.Sanjai) 20.01.2003 Block Period 01.04.1991 to 05.01.2001 relevant for the assessment years 91-92 to 2000- 01 and 2001-02 (Part) Block Period 01.04.1991 to 05.01.2001 relevant for the assessment years 91-92 to 2000-01 and 2001-02 (Part) 158BC r.w.s. 143(....