Case Law Details
Late Smt. Abida Mohammed Rakhangi Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)- ITAT held that we cannot also shut our eyes to reality of Indian lives wherein there is a love, pride and preference of Indian households to invest and hold gold ornaments etc for their usage as well for rainy days wherein gold can be sold to tide over financial difficulties. However, we also note that there is a CBDT instruction/guidelines no. 1916 dated 11th May, 1994 which although relates to non seizure of gold during the course of search operation u/s 132 which has duly considered Indian traditions and culture , wherein it is permitted by CBDT not to seize gold ornaments and jewellery in case of married lady to the tune of 500 gram in the course of search operations where no wealth tax returns are filed by said married lady and hence we are of the view that the explanation of the assessee of holding of the gold ornament/jewellery to the tune of 500 gram stand accepted , while the rest of the theory of selling balance of the gold /silver as put forward by the assessee stood rejected and it is held that the assessee could not substantiate the genuineness of the transaction for the balance quantity of sale of gold ornaments/silver and hence after giving credit for value of gold to the tune of 500 gms, rest of the amount shall be charged to tax in the hands of the assessee as undisclosed income . While for sale of 500 gram of the gold , the same shall be brought to tax by computing income from capital gains for which the assessee shall submit necessary details which shall be verified by the AO in accordance with law.
Full Text of the ITAT Order is as follows:-
These two appeal, filed by the assessee, being ITA No. 4048/Mum/2013 & ITA No. 5448/Mum/2013 for assessment years 2005-06 and 2007-08 respectively are directed against the appellate order dated 23.04.2013 & 03.06.2013 respectively passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-29, Mumbai (hereinafter called “the CIT(A)”), appellate proceedings had arisen before learned CIT(A) from the assessment orders both dated 22-12-2011 passed by learned Assessing Officer (hereinafter called “the AO”) u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act”).
2. The grounds of appeal in I.T.A. No. 4084/Mum/2013 raised by the Assessee in the memo of appeal filed with the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (hereinafter called “the tribunal”) read as under:-
“1. Under the facts and circumstances of your appellant, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 12,50,000 made by the assessing officer by treating the investment made in Fixed Deposits as unexplained investment u/s.69 of the Income-Tax, Act, 1961.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
