DCIT, Bangalore V. Smt. V. Jeyanthi, Bangalore

ITSSA 49/BANG/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9504 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-03-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 02-03-2010
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 24-06-2008
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Gift; Block assessment
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH A BEFORE DR. O.K NARAYANAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(SS)A NO.49 /BAN G/2008 (BLOCK ASST. YEAR -1.4.1997 TO 3.4.2003) THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE. . APPELLANT VS. SMT. V JEYANTHI NO.1147,12 TH MAIN ROAD, H.A.L II STAGE, INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 008. . RESPONDENT CO NO.51 /BANG/2009 (BLOCK ASST. YEAR -1998-99 TO 2003-04) THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE. . APPELLANT VS. SMT. V JEYANTHI NO.1147,12 TH MAIN ROAD, H.A.L II STAGE, INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 038. . RESPONDENT REVENUE BY : SMT. JACINTA ZIMIK VASHAI, ADDL. CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME-T AX ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NARENDRA SHARMA, ADVOCATE IT(SS)A NO.49/B/08 2 CO NO.51/B/09 O R D E R PER DR. O.K NARAYANAN, VICE PRESIDENT THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE. THE CROSS-OB JECTION IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL IS A BLOCK ASSES SMENT APPEAL. THE APPEAL AND CROSS-OBJECTION ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)- VI AT BANGALORE DATED 31.3.2008. THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN MADE U/S 143(3) READ WITH SEC. 158BD OF THE IN COME-TAX ACT. 2. THE ONLY GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THIS AP PEAL IS THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.4,9 1,870/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AGAINST UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY. 3. THE DETAILS OF THE JEWELLERY ACCOUNTABLE TO SMT. V.R JEYANTHI ARE AVAILABLE AT PAGE 5 OF THE CIT(A)S ORDER, WHIC H GIVES A PICTURE REGARDING THE NATURE OF ORNAMENTS INCLUDING DIAMOND ORNAMENTS BY WAY OF GIFTS ETC. ETC., THE ENTIRE ADDITION HAS BE EN DELETED BY THE CIT(A) ON THE SOLE GROUND THAT THE ORNAMENTS WERE N OT ACQUIRED OUT OF THE INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE BUT WERE ACTUA LLY GOT OUT OF GIFTS RECEIVED FROM VARIOUS PERSONS BEFORE AND AFTER MARR IAGE. THE REASONING RELIED ON BY THE CIT(A) IS VERY PLAUSIBLE ONE WHEN WE IT(SS)A NO.49/B/08 3 CO NO.51/B/09 CONSIDER THE PRACTICAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF LIFE AND AL SO THE FINANCIAL STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE. BUT, THAT DOES NOT MEAN TH E ENTIRE QUANTITY OF GOLD COULD BE THE RESULT OF GIFTS RECEIVED FROM OTH ERS. SOME OF THE ORNAMENTS WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GENERATED FROM GIFTS. THE QUESTION IS, WHO PURCHASED THOSE ORNAMENTS? IF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED THE SOURCE FOR THE PURCHASE, IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN BROUG HT IN THE HANDS OF ANY OTHER PERSON. AS THAT HAS NOT BEEN DONE IN THE PRESENT CASE, WE FIND THAT IT IS NOT PROPER TO DELETE THE ENTIRE ADD ITION OF RS.4,91,870/- ON THE GROUND OF RECEIPT OF GIFTS. 4. TAKING IN TO ALL THE ASPECTS OF THE CASE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS POINT AND RESTORE THE ADDITION T O A SUM OF RS.1,50,000/- 5. WE DO NOT FIND MUCH FORCE IN THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE CROSS- OBJECTION, WHICH ARE NOTHING BUT LEGAL PROPOSITIONS BASED ON JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS. THE CROSS OBJECTION, IS, THEREFORE LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. IT(SS)A NO.49/B/08 4 CO NO.51/B/09 6. IN RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS PA RTY ALLOWED AND THE CROSS-OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMIS SED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF M ARCH, 2010, AT BANGALORE. SD/- SD/- (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) (DR. O.K NARAYA NAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PR ESIDENT VMS. COPY TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE REVENUE 3.THE CIT CONCERNED. 4.THE CIT(A) CONCERNED. 5.DR 6.GF 7..GF, ITAT, NEW DELHI. BY ORD ER ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALOR E.