Law:

Section:

Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained moneys - Assessment year 1964-65 - Assessee, in her wealth tax returns disclosed jewellery worth Rs. 65,000 said to have been received at time of her marriage - It was an accepted fact that assessee belonged to a rich family - ITO, however, added entire amount as income from undisclosed sources - On appeal AAC held that she could normally have possessed jewellery worth Rs. 25,000 and upheld addition of balance amount - On further appeal, Tribunal upheld orders of AAC - Whether, on facts, it was for revenue either to discard or accept explanation offered by assessee but there was no scope of apportionment - Held, yes - Whether, moreover, having regard to status and wealth of family of assessee, it was not unnatural for assessee to receive all ornaments in question on her marriage - Held, yes - Whether, in such circumstances, addition sustained by Tribunal was unjustified, and it was liable to be deleted - Held, yes FACTS For the relevant assessment year the assessee disclosed in her wealth-tax return jewellery worth Rs. 65,000. The ITO required the assessee to explain the source of the acquisition of the said jewellery. A month's time was sought for, but ultimately no explanation whatsoever was tendered by her. As a result, the ITO assessed the entire value of jewellery as her income from undisclosed sources. On appeal the assessee contended before the AAC that the addition was entirely presumptuous and was not supported by any evidence. It was further contended before him that the jewelleries were received at the time of the assessee's marriage from her grandfather, father and father-in-law. The AAC, after accepting that the assessee belonged to a rich family and she must have received some ornaments in her marriage and that it was difficult for her to prove the source of acquisition after 35 years of her marriage when some of her relations making gift or presentations to her were dead, held that she could normally have possessed jewelleries worth Rs. 25,000. The balance of Rs. 40,000 was treated as her acquisition from unexplained sources, and confirmed the. addition to that extent. On second appeal the…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492