Jewellery as per CBDT instruction may be treated as unexplained investment

V.G.P.Ravidas Vs Asst.CIT (Madras High Court)

Madras High Court upholds assessment of excess gold jewellery as unexplained investment; rejects plea based on Board Instruction dated 11.5.1994.

The Board Instruction dated 11.5.1994 stipulates the circumstances under which excess gold jewellery or ornaments could be seized and where it need not be seized. It does not state that it should not be treated as unexplained investment in jewellery. In this case, the Original Authority has correctly included the excess jewellery other than what has been found in the wealth tax assessment as unexplained investment in jewellery and demanded tax and penalty.

FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT JUDGMENT

These appeals are filed by the assessees challenging the common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai ‘D’ Bench, dated 31.12.2013 made in ITA No.48/Mds/2013 and ITA.No.49/Mds/2013 respectively for the assessment year 2009-2010, raising 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.