| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2005 SLG 2532 2005 SLD 2532 (2005) 277 ITR 56 |
Rajasthan High Court
D.B. IT APPEAL No. 21 OF 2002 MAY 12, 2005
Y.R. MEENA, ACTG. C.J. AND, J.R. GOYAL, J.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
D.B. IT APPEAL No. 21 OF 2002 MAY 12, 2005
Y.R. MEENA, ACTG. C.J. AND, J.R. GOYAL, J.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Radha Kishan Soni*
v.
Commissioner of IncomE tax
Law:
Section:
Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained investments - Assessment year 1990-91 - In a search conducted at assessee's premises some gold jewellery was found - Assessee explained that same belonged to three ladies of his family - Assessing Officer, however, rejected assessee's explanation and made an addition on account of unexplained investment in jewellery - Commissioner (Appeals) considering status of assessee held that gold jewellery belonged to three ladies and, accordingly, deleted addition - Whether addition had rightly been deleted by Commissioner (Appeals) - Held, yes FACTS A search was conducted at the premises of the assessee, where jewellery was found. Assessee's explanation that there were three ladies in the family and the said jewellery belonged to them was rejected and addition was made on account of unexplained investment in jewellery. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) considering the status of the assessee found that the gold jewellery belonged to the said ladies and, deleted the addition. On revenue's appeal, the Tribunal reversed the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that no panchnama or valuation report was brought on record. On appeal : HELD Considering the status of the family of the assessee, no justification could be seen in the order of the Tribunal and no addition should have been made on account of gold jewellery. Therefore, the addition in that regard had rightly been deleted by the Commissioner (Appeals).[Para 7] Therefore, the appeal of the assessee was to be allowed. R.K. Kasliwal for the Applicant. R.B. Mathur for the Respondent. ORDER 1. The appeal was admitted in terms of the following question :- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in reversing order passed by the CIT(A), on account of addition made by the Assessing Officer regarding seized gold ornaments in absence of Panchnama or valuation report, irrespective of the fact that Panchnama was prepared at the time of search on 7-9-1989?" 2. A search was conducted in this case on 7-9-1989, inter alia jewellery weighing 382.5 gms. was found at the time of search. Before Assessing Officer, the case…
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