Case Law Details
Ashok Chaddha Vs ITO (Delhi High Court)
The issue under consideration is whether the Tribunal is correct in making the addition of the entire jewellery found at the time of search as undisclosed income without appreciating that the said jewellery was acquired at the time of marriage over a period of time?
High Court states that the addition made is totally arbitrary and is not found on any cogent basis or evidence. HC have to keep in mind that the assessee was married for more than 25-30 years. The jewellery in question is not very substantial. The learned counsel for the appellant/assessee is correct in her submission that it is a normal custom for woman to receive jewellery in the form of “stree dhan” or on other occasions such as birth of a child etc. Collecting jewellery of 906.900 grams by a woman in a married life of 25-30 years is not abnormal. Furthermore, there was no valid and/or proper yardstick adopted by the Assessing Officer to treat only 400 grams as “reasonable allowance” and treat the other as “unexplained”. Matter would have been different if the quantum and value of the jewellery found was substantial. HC are, therefore, of the opinion that the findings of the Tribunal are totally perverse and far from the realities of life. In the peculiar facts of this case HC answer the question in favour of the assessee and against the revenue thereby deleting the aforesaid addition made by tribunal.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT
1. Admit on the following substantial questions of law:-
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
