TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1991 (12) TMI 99
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ade by the ITO with reference to the jewellery and ornaments and silver utensils that were found at the time of the search conducted in the locker of the assessee in Bank of India, Lindsay Street Branch, Calcutta on 7th Jan., 1984. At the time of the search operations, statements were recorded from the assessee, her elder sister Smt. Mandira Mukherjee and another person Smt. Hasi Kanjilal. After obtaining the explanation for the sources of acquisition and possession of these jewelleries and ornaments and silver utensils, the ITO concluded that they all belonged to the assessee and that they represented acquisitions made by her out of her unaccounted income. He rejected the assessee's explanation as well as the evidence produced by her in su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ccording to which not less than Rs. 10,000 was to be spent on the marriage of the assessee and her daughter. The CIT(A) held that this was the valuable evidence to prove the financial standing of the assessee's family. He also referred to the fact that not less than roads of Behala are named after the members of the family which proved the standing of the family in this part of the country from which the assessee hails. He also referred to the particulars of income returned and assessed in the case of the assessee's father-in-law, Shri V.P. Ganguly just to show that it gave a clear idea of the affluence of the family of the assessee's in-laws. He also held that in the case of the assessee's sister, Smt. Mandira Mukherjee, the claim of owner....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... value of the jewellery was put at Rs. 29,809 but, the value of this jewellery in the year 1978 when this child was born would have been around Rs. 14,000 only which cannot be said to be high. Regarding one of the items of jewellery in the case of Smt. Mandira Mukherjee and her daughter Sharmistha Ganguly, the Commissioner held that there was no case for disbelieving their claims considering the smallness of the value of these two items, more particularly in the light of the fact that Smt. Sharmistha Ganguly had shown this item of jewellery in her wealth-tax return. Adverting to the ownership of the jewellery claiming to belong to Smt. Hasi Kanjilal, the Commissioner found that even at the time of opening of the locker in the course of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llery by the assessee, her daughters and others ignoring the available facts and evidence on record and that, therefore, the addition of Rs. 2,45,600 made on this account to the assessee's income was not justified. The Commissioner therefore, deleted the same. It is against this order of the CIT(A) that the Department has come up on further appeal to the Tribunal. 5. We have heard Shri D.S. Roy, the learned Departmental Representative and Shri A.K. Chakraborty, the learned counsel for the assessee and carefully considered their submissions in the light of the materials placed before us. 6. In our view, the decision of the CIT(A) accepting the assessee's contentions and deleting this addition of Rs. 2,45,600 is right both in law and on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ove, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that the taxing authorities were not required to put on blinkers while looking at the documents produced before them and that they were entitled to look into the sorrounding circumstances to find out the reality of the recitals made in those documents, and that further the facts of life should not also be ignored. On the question of onus, their Lordships also held that the law does not prescribe any quantitative test to find out whether the onus in a particular case has been discharged or not, that it all depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, that in some cases the onus may be heavy whereas, in others, it may be nominal and that there is nothing rigid about it. 8. When we....