| The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 2461 (Chd-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 69A
Where AO accepted jewellery shown by HUF of assessee, but did not accept jewellery shown in wealth-tax returns of another persons belonging to family of assessee, considering similar facts, contrary stand taken by AO was not justified when assessee was having sufficient quantity of gold disclosed in wealth-tax returns as well as gold bonds.
|
Income from undisclosed sources - Addition under section 69A - Unexplained jewellery claimed to be acquired after redemption of gold bonds - AO accepted jewellery shown by HUF of assessee on similar facts and circumstances
Assessee challenged order of CIT(A) confirming order of AO making addition on account of alleged unexplained Jewellery amounting to Rs. 59,59,890 under section 69A. Assessee contended that jewellery was acquired after search from redemption of Gold Bond, which was distributed by his father among various family members. Held: In instant case it was noticed that AO accepted jewellery shown by HUF of assessee, but did not accept jewellery shown in wealth tax returns of another persons belonging to family of assessee. When facts were similar, contrary stand taken by AO was not justified when assessee was having sufficient quantity of gold disclosed in Wealth Tax Returns and SBI Gold Bond Deposit Scheme as well as Gold Bonds.
REFERRED : Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 938 (SC) : 1977 TaxPub(DT) 0842 (SC) Sushila Devi v. CIT [WP(C) No. 7620 of 2011, dated 21-10-2016] : 2016 TaxPub(DT) 5091 (Del-HC) CIT v. Naresh Kumar Kohli (2015) 371 ITR 201 (P&H) : 2015 TaxPub(DT) 0703 (P&H-HC) Dr. Sushil Rastogi v. Director of Investigations & Ors. (2003) 128 Taxman 217 (All) : 2003 TaxPub(DT) 0935 (All-HC) Radha Mital and Ruchie Mital v. DCIT [ITA No. 2810/Del/2016 Order, dated 9-7-2018] Shalini Gupta v. DCIT [ITA No. 6103/Del/2014 Order, dated 28-6-2018 (Delhi-Bench)] : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 4469 (Del-Trib) Shri Raj Kumar Kakrania v. DCIT [ITA No. 1397/Del/2015 Order, dt. 30-5-2018 (Delhi Bench)] : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 3085 (Del-Trib) Vibhu Aggarwal v. DCIT (2018) 93 taxmann.com 275 (Del-Bench) : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 2507 (Del-Trib) Suneela Soni v. DCIT [ITA No. 5259/Del/2007, dated 16-3-2018] : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 1778 (Del-Trib) Mrs. Nawaz Singhania v. DCIT [ITA No. 3979/Mum/2017 Order, dated 22-12-2017 (Mum-Bench)] : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 0183 (Mum-Trib) Haroon Mohd. v. Department of Income Tax [ITA No. 463/Mum/2012, dated 31-1-2014] Naveen Bansal (HUF) v. ITO (2012) 146 TTJ 207 (Del) : 2012 TaxPub(DT) 2213 (Del-Trib)
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour
A.Y. :
INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 69A
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|