Case Law Details

Case Name : Shri Kirtibhai K. Shroff Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad)
Appeal Number : ITA No.342/Ahd/2011
Date of Judgement/Order : 17/10/2014
Related Assessment Year :
Courts : All ITAT (7341) ITAT Ahmedabad (485)

Issue -During the course of search certain valuables including jewellery was found and the assessee has filed detailed explanation regarding the source of acquisition of jewellery. The assessee has explained that out of the jewellery found, some part belongs to the wife of the assessee, and some part thereof was gifted by the mother of the assessee to the wife of the However, the explanation of the assessee was not fully accepted and out of jewellery weighing 4492.5 grams found at the time of search, the jewellery weighing 783.15 grams was treated as income from undisclosed source by the AO. He submitted that the assessee has filed explanation, and merely because it was not accepted during the assessment proceedings, it does not mean that the assessee is guilty for concealment of income or filing of inaccurate particulars of income. He submitted that the explanation of the asses see was bona fide.

Facts of the case- Assessee has filed a detailed explanation regarding source of acquisition of jewellery found at the lime of survey. The assessee has also made a disclosure of Rs. 1.65 crores at the time of search proceedings, taking into consideration the on-money received on sale of land and certain other investment, and has disclosed an amount of Rs. 1.65 crores in its return of income filed in response to the notice under section 153A of the Act in the name of the assessee or his family members.

Held –  Merely because the explanation of the assessee with regard to the acquisition of some part of the jewellery not accepted by the taxing authorities, it does not follow that the assessee was guilty of concealment of income or filing of inaccurate particulars of income. There is no material brought on record on behalf of the Revenue to suggest that the explanation of the assessee regarding source for acquisition of jewellery was not bond fide. In these facts of the case, we are of the view that it is not a fit case for imposition of penalty under section 271 (l)(c) of the Act which is accordingly cancelled, and the ground of the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Download Judgment/Order

More Under Income Tax


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search Posts by Date

October 2020