Rekha Khaitan Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi)
ITAT Delhi held that more specific plea and explanation ought to be given by an assessee for discharging burden u/s 69B of the Income Tax Act to explain jewelry beyond that mentioned in Wealth Tax Return.
Facts- The assessee was directed to explain the source of jewelry weighing worth Rs. 7,64,46,500/- found from residence and bank locker of the assessee. After taking into consideration the wealth tax return and invoices the Ld. AO sought explanation of jewelry worth Rs. 2,71,57,132/-.
After considering the wealth tax return, bills supporting articles purchased, there was a balance of 558.74gms. The assessee claimed that the balance 558.74 gm “may” have been received as gifts from family and friends on various occasions ‘after 2015-16’ thus, not forming part of assessee’s wealth tax return. Assessee claimed the same commensurate with the financial and social standing of the assessee. It was also claimed by the assessee that having being married for over 60 years on various religious and customary occasions, the gifts were exchanged on festivals and customary celebrations. The assessee claimed benefit of CBDT Circular and instructions dated 11.05.2014 and certain judicial pronouncements to claim that the balance 558.74 gms should be considered to be explained.
AO made addition. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal. Being aggrieved, revenue has preferred the present appeal.
Conclusion- Stridhan is the individual property of a woman and it cannot be said to be held by other members of family unless specially entrusted to them. Which is not the case of assessee as all the recoveries were from her possession and at every level so far she has claimed it to be her stridhan only.
Held that more specific plea and explanation ought to be given by an assessee filing WTR, when explanation is sought to discharge burden u/s 69B under the Act, to explain jewelry beyond that mentioned in WTR, which Assessee failed. Thus giving benefit on the basis of status of family, as stridhan or in the hands of other family member in terms of Circular by the Ld. CIT(A) had no legal basis.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
1. The appeals are preferred by the Assessee & Revenue against the order dated 21.09.2022 of CIT(A)-27, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. ‘FAA’) in appeal no. 27/10827/2018-19 arising out of an appeal before it against the assessment order dated 14.06.2021passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) by the ACIT/DCIT, CC-19, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as the Ld. AO).
2. The facts in brief are the search and seizure operations u/s 132/13 3 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were conducted on 19.01.2019 in the case of Gautam Khaitan Group of cases at various residential & business premises. Assessee is widow of Late O.P.Khaitan and mother of Gautam Khaitan, who the assessee in the submissions before the ld. Tax Authorities had claimed were renowned Lawyer of reputed law firm. Notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued to the assessee on 23.09.2020. In response the assessee had filed a return of income declaring total income of Rs. 1,57,590/-. A statutory notice were issued with questionnaire.
2.1 The assessee was directed to explain the source of jewelry weighing worth Rs. 7,64,46,500/- found from residence and bank locker of the assessee. After taking into consideration the wealth tax return and invoices the Ld. AO sought explanation of jewelry worth Rs. 2,71,57,132/-. Ld. AO had made two tables. Table I had list of jewelry recovered from Premises weighing (Gross weight) 2345.72 gms., and (net weight) 1426.97 gms. and Table II had list of jewelry recovered from Bank Locker weighing (Gross weight) 1885. 16gms. and (net weight) 1221.07gms.
2.2 The assessee after referring to wealth tax return (WTR), bills supporting articles purchased offered following explanation :
