Case Law Details
Pipush kumar O Desai Vs CIT (Gujarat High Court)
Upon perusal of the relevant record, copies of which have been annexed to the paper book supplied to this court, it is very clear that the assessee had given sufficient details with regard to the sources from which he had purchased the jewellery in question. Upon perusal of the statement giving details with regard to cash inflow, it is very clear that in the beginning of October 1983, the family of the assessee was having cash balance of Rs. 39,939/- and even during the month of October 83 approximately Rs. 20,000/- were received by the family members either from the bank or from the business; and from other sources, the family members had received approx. Rs. 13,000/-. As the family was having sufficient cash at its disposal, the assessee or the family members did not think it proper to withdraw further cash from the business or from the bank for the purpose of purchase of the jewellery in question. It also appears to be a fact that the assessee and his family had sufficient funds so as to enable the family to purchase the jewellery in question, estimated cost of which is Rs. 18,000/-.
Upon perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal, it is very clear that the statement and documents referred to hereinabove were not taken into account by the Tribunal at the time of deciding the appeal. By not taking into account the relevant documents in the nature of receipts issued by the persons who had done labour work or had supplied gold for the purpose of purchase of the jewellery in question, the Tribunal had erroneously exercised its jurisdiction. We are of the view that the Tribunal ought not to have disregarded the statement giving details of cash inflow by observing that the said statement was prepared after the search proceedings had been concluded. Such a statement could have been prepared only after the conclusion of the search because at the relevant time the assessee was not having complete details with regard to the receipts and his household expenditure as he was not maintaining books of account for his household expenses. Had the Tribunal looked into the statement submitted by the assessee, the Tribunal could have surely found that the family was having sufficient cash and there was a possibility that the assessee could have very well purchased the jewellery in question, which was valued at Rs. 18,500/- at the time of search, from the cash which was available with the assessee and his family members at the relevant time. In our opinion, the Tribunal ought to have considered the said statement. It was open to the Tribunal not to agree with the said statement if the statement was found to be incorrect or unreasonable, but, in the instant case, without making any comment on the genuineness or otherwise of the statement, the Tribunal simply ignored the said statement.
In view of the fact that all the three questions are interconnected and they mainly depend upon the reading of the documents, in our opinion, the Tribunal ought not to have added Rs. 12,728/- in the income of the assessee by ignoring the contents of the statement submitted by the assessee.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
The examination of receipt of cash either from bank/business/relatives need to have been tested