Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore
Income Tax Officer vs A Sunitha on 11 September, 2000
Equivalent citations: (2001)69TTJ(BANG)223
ORDER
A. Kalyanasundharam, Senior V.P. These are two appeals by the assessee. The grounds are common except for the value of jewellery being decided at Rs. 60,000 in assessment year 1990-91 and Rs. 1,30,000 in assessment year 1991-92. Otherwise, the grounds are identical and they are reproduced below:
"(1) The learned Commissioner (Appeals)'s order is opposed to facts of the case.
(2) The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in deleting the additions made in respect of unexplained jewellery of Rs. 60,000 and Rs. 1,30,000.
(3) The learned Commissioner (Appeals) failed to distinguish the facts of the following case laws cited by him as the facts obtained in the case of the present assessee are entirely different and, therefore, has no application.
(a) S. Mariappa Nadar v. Income Tax Officer (ITAT, Madras Bench 'A') (1984) 19 TTJ (Mad-Trib) 431 -Ed. 1
(b) Pratiba Rani v. Suraj Kumar & Anr. (1986) 155 ITR 190 (SC).,
(c) Kusumlatha v. CIT (1989) 180 ITR 365 (Raj)
(d) Kusumlatha Singhal v. CIT (1990) 185 ITR 56 (SC),. and
(e) Income Tax Officer v. Mathurdas Motichand (1993) 47 TTJ (Ahd-Trib) (4) The learned Commissioner (Appeals)'s observation (vide para 4(i) of the appellate order) that the declaration made by assessee 'looks as if superimposed' is unwarranted and is against facts. The Hon'ble Tribunal had occasion to consider such matter in respect of the declaration made by the assessee's family members who are partners in M/s Devi Ranga Silks, etc. and in its order dated 22-8-1994 observed that...... We have no doubt in our minds that the admissions made by Vasanth Kumar and other partners were free and voluntary.
(5) The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not appreciated the fact that there is a wide gap in time between the original declaration by the assessee (19-10-1990) and its retracing (28-11-1991). The retracting obviously is tutored one and without any value. After all the assessee has not said in her declaration that she received the jewellery at the time of her marriage.
(6) The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in accepting the assessee's claim as her 'Stridhan' without any adequate proof except her relatives' statements who are vitally interested.
(7) There is no illegality of the seizure made belonging to the assessee in the hands of Sri L. Vasantha Kumar, who is one of the brothers of the assessee's husband. It should have been noted that the warrant was in the name of Vasantha Kumar and all the family members including the assessee are residing in the family house which was searched. The jewellery was found in the assessee's bedroom and it was accordingly seized in the name of Vasantha Kumar, since the assessee claimed to be its own by a, letter filed, the value of such jewellery was brought to tax in her hands as 'unexplained investments', (8) For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) may be cancelled and that of the assessing officer restored. "
2. The facts, as brought out by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), are that the business premises of M/s Devi Silks and others were searched between 9 and 28-11-1990. There was no warrant permitting search in the assessee's case. However, on a search of the bedroom of the assessee, 660.725 gms. of gold jewellery of which 466.725 gms. of jewellery were seized despite the fact that there was no warrant in the name of the assessee. The seizure was not effected in the hands of the husband. The seizure, however, was made in the hands of the assessee's brother-in-law because the warrant was in his name.
3. The submission of the assessee, before the Commissioner (Appeals), was that seizure of the assets, without any warrant, was illegal as was held by the Karnataka High Court in Nenmal Shankarlal Parmer v. Assistant Commissioner (1991) 195 ITR 582 (Karn). It was further alleged that the assessee was not at all examined under section 132(4) of the Act either during the search or thereafter and that there was nothing on the record of the department to suggest that the seized jewellery represented the unaccounted investment of the assessee. Despite this, the officers who carried out the search typed out letter dated 19-10- 1990, and the assessee was made to sign the said letter offering Rs. 1,30,000 as income to be spread over the two years at Rs. 60,000 and Rs. 70,000, respectively. The assessing officer, despite the above, included Rs. 60,000 as income for the assessment year 1990-91 and Rs. 1,30,000 as income for the assessment year 1991-92,
4. It was also submitted before the Commissioner (Appeals) that the origin of the jewellery needs to be examined. The father of the assessee was a retired professor and had categorically stated that he had given his wife's jewellery to his daughter and that his widowed-sister too presented his daughter her jewellery and that he had given the description of the jewellery as was given to the assessee. This was followed by a confirmation letter from the father of the assessee before the assessing officer on 11-1-1992. It was stated, in the said letter, that his widowed sister had no issue and was living with him and she had given some jewellery of hers to his daughter. It was further stated the assessee received from her mother jewellery and what was received from her was her 'Streedhan' and it was returned under section 132(5) of the Act on 18-1- 1991.
5. The Commissioner (Appeals) had noted the above and also had noted that the declaration of 19-10- 1990 was signed by the assessee in English. He considered the submissions of the assessee that she was made to sign the declaration. The submission as to the effect that the search was in the name of the brother-in-law of the assessee was also noted by the Commissioner (Appeals).
6. The Commissioner (Appeals) came to the conclusion that the various evidence, as indicated by the assessee, would go to show that the father of the assessee had provided gold jewellery to the assessee. The contentions of the learned counsel for the assessee have been very carefully considered. The source of income of the assessee, as has been shown, is income from salary and income from other sources. No doubt, the family of the assessee is well to do but there is nothing on record to suggest that these jewelleries are undisclosed income of the assessee or that of the firm, i.e. that they have used the undisclosed income of the assessee which would go over to them or that the assessee has income that is earned by her which is not disputed. Indian ladies possessing jewellery is something which is quite normal. When the father of the assessee has given a statement of having given his wife's jewellery to his daughter, which is usually a thing that is being followed as a custom or out of love and affection by the father for the daughter, such a statement, in our view, cannot be rejected. The value of gold jewellery has shot up in the last three decades but earlier to that gold was not that costly. Because the present price of gold, i.e., at the time of search, being more, need not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the jewellery was purchased by the assessee out of her undisclosed income. It needs certain other circumstances, like the assessee having some kind of business or source of income not shown by the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, and in view of the facts as brought out above, we are of the opinion that the addition was not called for in the hands of the assessee for both the years. The additions are, accordingly, deleted.
7. In the result, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is upheld and the appeals are dismissed.