TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (11) TMI 123
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on whatsoever for the alleged unexplained investment in jewellery can be made in the year under appeal inasmuch as the jewellery was admittedly declared in her wealth-tax returns for the assessment years 1981-82 to 1986-87 which was accepted as such. 5. That the ld. CIT(A) has further erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 1,000 on account of the value of Gold - Tax telephone which was explained to have been received as a gift and as such, no such addition is warranted and the same ought to have been deleted in full. 6. That the ld. CIT(A) has further erred in not allowing the ground of disallowance of part of the generator expenses for the alleged personal use of the same for the appellant's residence which is again arbitrary and unjustified. 2. With regard to ground No. 1, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee as well as her husband both are practising doctors. There was a search in their premises on 16-10-1986 when consumable stores and medicines were found valuing at Rs. 8,500. The explanation of the assessee was that she as well as her husband have not been showing any stocks of consumable stores/medicines either as an opening stock or closing s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iture debited on account of telephone in the case of the assessee was Rs. 6,718 and the Assessing Officer disallowed a sum of Rs. 1,344 at 1/5th for personal use. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) reduced the disallowance to Rs. 1,000. After hearing the parties to the dispute, we are of the opinion that the order of the CIT(A) requires no interference as the personal use cannot be denied and disallowance cannot be called excessive. This ground is dismissed. 5. Ground Nos. 3 and 4 relate to the action of the Assessing Officer which has been upheld by the CIT(A) in making an addition of Rs. 51,600 on account of alleged unexplained investment in the acquisition of jewellery. At the time of search, 582 gms. of jewellery was found details of which are as under:— jewellery found at the residence 296 gms. jewellery found in locker 286 gms. ------....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 30-9-86 which date was prior to the date of search and those returns were duly accepted by the Assessing Officer by passing an order under section 16(3). The returns for earlier years were not filed as the wealth of the assessee was not taxable in those years. Accordingly, it was submitted that once the source of acquisition was explained to be the receipt of gifts by the assessee from her parents and in-laws at the time of her marriage and that having been duly declared in the wealth-tax returns filed prior to the date of search, there was no justification for accepting only a part of the jewellery belonging to the assessee as having been received at the time of marriage and making the addition of Rs. 51,600 which should be deleted. 7. Smt. Parneet Mehal, the ld. D.R., supported the order of the CIT(A) and further submitted that since the factum of assessee having jewellery was found only at the time of search, i.e. on 16-10-86, the presumption is that it was acquired in the assessment year under consideration and since the assessee has no satisfactory explanation, the departmental authorities were more than reasonable in allowing benefit of 300 gms. to the assessee and have r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n account of value gold tax telephone reduced by the CIT(A) out of Rs. 2,500, as her unexplained investment. Before us, Shri Gupta submitted that it is a digital telephone and keeping in view the profession of the assessee who is a gynecologist, the same was received as a gift from some of her patient and it has not cost her anything. It was submitted that it cannot be treated as the unexplained investment of the assessee out of undisclosed income. Smt. Parneet Mehal, the ld. D.R., on the other hand supported the order of the CIT(A) and further submitted that no evidence has been furnished by the assessee to support the contention that she has received this telephone as a gift. She accordingly submitted that the departmental authorities were justified in taxing the same as assessee's income. 10. We have considered the rival submissions and gone through the orders passed by the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A). The assessee has not brought any evidence on record to support the contention that the digital telephone gold-tax was received by her as a gift and as such we are of the opinion that the departmental authorities were justified in making the disputed addition. Even a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T. Act was explained, would arise in the year in which the appellant's ownership of the jewellery first came to notice which, in the instant case, would be the assessment year under consideration. If the appellant really wanted to take advantage of the Amnesty Scheme, then simultaneously with the declaration under the W.T. Act, the appellant should have also made a declaration under the I.T. Act in respect of that part of the jewellery, the acquisition of which she was not able to explained. If the appellant chose to make a declaration under the Amnesty Scheme in the manner she has, she is herself to blame for the extra wealth-tax which she may have paid for assessment years 1981-82 to 1986-87 in respect of the jewellery, the source of which has been held to be unexplained by ld. Assessing Officer. Regarding the quantum of jewellery which the appellant could have received at the time of her marriage, I agree with the estimate made by ld. Assessing Officer. The order of ld. Assessing Officer on this issue is accordingly confirmed." 4. In my opinion, the authorities below have dealt with the issue at length and have properly passed a valid and well-reasoned order on the issue. As ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nbsp; 582 gms. ----- The assessee explained that out of the aforesaid jewellery, 495 gms. (wrongly taken at 485 gms.) belonged to her and which she had received at the time of her marriage either from her parents or in-laws. It was stated that the jewellery had been shown in the wealth-tax returns for the assessment year 1981-82 as also the subsequent years which had been filed on 30th Sept., 1986. It is noted that although these returns were filed under the Amnesty scheme, they were not accepted as such by the WTO who proceeded to frame an assessment under section 16(3) of the Wealth-tax Act. The wealth-tax assessment orders for assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83 have been placed on record by the assessee's counsel who has further submitted that for the subsequent assessment years, the wealth was below the taxable limit and no returns were filed. It was further stated that out of the remaining jewellery, 15 gms. belonged to the husband of the assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Sept., 1986, i.e. prior to the date of search. 2. That in the aforesaid wealth-tax returns, the assessee had declared jewellery to the tune of 495 gms. and this had been accepted by the WTO by framing an assessment under section 16(3). 3. Out of the total jewellery found, i.e., 585 gms., 15 gms. were stated to be belonging to the assessee's husband, 72 gms. to the assessee's children and the balance 495 gms. to the assessee herself. 4. It was quite customary in the case of lady assessees to have received jewellery at the time of marriage from their parents and in-laws and 495 gms. of jewellery could not be considered as huge keeping in view the price of gold prevalent at the time of assessee's marriage. Similarly, 15 gms. of jewellery claimed to be belonging to her husband consisting of the wedding ring and a chain could not be considered excessive by any standard and that apart, these two items were not seized by the search party. On the same analogy, 72 gms. of jewellery was claimed to be belonging to the assessee's children and this was apparent from the size of the items which clearly indicated that they were not meant for adults. In the final analysis, the ld. Account....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nue's case for sustaining the addition of Rs. 51,600 placing strong reliance on the decision of the learned Judicial Member. 10. After considering rival submissions, I am of the view that the addition of Rs. 51,600 cannot be sustained on the facts and circumstances of the case which have been adequately highlighted in the order passed by the learned Accountant Member. He has rightly taken note of the fact that the existence of the jewellery to the tune of 495 gms. stood accepted by the department in the wealth-tax assessments for assessment years 1981-82 onwards the returns in respect of which had been filed by the assessee prior to the date of search. In my opinion, it is not at all a relevant issue for deciding the present point of difference, whether the returns were filed under the Amnesty Scheme or otherwise, since it is not a point of dispute between the parties that the returns although filed in one go on 30th Sept., 1986 were voluntary and prior to any detection by the department. The ld. D.R. in the course of arguments before me canvassed a view to the fact that acceptance in the wealth-tax returns did not tantamount to explaining the source insofar as the income-tax as....