The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 4467 (Mum-Trib)

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Section 69B

Assessee duly submitted necessary affidavits from family members as to the quantity of jewellery which belonged to them. Accordingly, if assessee had erroneously or under compulsion offered jewellery belonging to other family members, as his own it did not bring upon any legal bar upon assessee from claiming his rightful dues that assessee should not be taxed for the same especially when jewellery found was within the limit fixed by CBDT as per Instruction No. 1994, dated 11-5-1994.

Income from undisclosed sources - Addition under section 69B - Jewellery belonging to family members found during search offered by assessee as his income - AO taxed entire jewellery in assessee's hands though same being within limit fixed by CBDT

During the course of search in assessee's case jewellery worth Rs. 27 lakhs was found from four bank lockers. This was explained to be belonging to various lady members of family but assessee offered it as his income. AO taxed 100% of the value of undisclosed jewellery found in assessee's hands. Assessee contended that jewellery found during the course of search was belonging to family members of assessee and it was well within the limit jewellery holding prescribed by CBDT.Held: If a particular income is not taxable under the Act, it cannot be taxed on the basis of estoppel or any other equitable doctrine. In the instant case, assessee duly submitted necessary affidavits from family members as to the quantity of jewellery which belonged to them. Accordingly, if assessee had erroneously or under compulsion offered jewellery belonging to other family members, as his own it did not bring upon any legal bar upon assessee from claiming his rightful dues that assessee should not be taxed for the same especially when jewellery found was within the limit fixed by CBDT as per Instruction No. 1994, dated 11-5-1994.

Supported by:CIT v. Mr. P. Firm (1965) 56 ITR 67 (SC) : 1965 TaxPub(DT) 204 (SC), Shelly Products (2003) 129 Taxman 271 (SC) : 2003 TaxPub(DT) 1281 (SC), Dy. CIT v Haroon Unni [ITA No. 463/Mum/2012, dated 31-1-2014] (Mum-Trib), Ritu Bajaj v. DCIT (ITA No. 4101/Del/2017, dated 9-3-2018) (Del-Trib) : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 1787 (Del-Trib), CIT v. Satya Narain Patni (2014) 46 taxmann.com 440 (Raj-HC) : 2014 TaxPub(DT) 3193 (Raj-HC), Balmukund Acharya v. DCIT (2009) 310 ITR 310 (Bom-HC) : 2009 TaxPub(DT) 1213 (Bom-HC), CIT v. Mitesh Impex 225 Taxman 168 (Guj) (Mag) CIT v. UTI Bank Ltd. (2017) 398 ITR 514 (Guj.-HC) : 2017 TaxPub(DT) 4867 (Guj-HC) CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders (2012) 349 ITR 336 (Bom-HC) : 2012 TaxPub(DT) 2671 (Bom-HC), CIT v. Bakelite Hylam Ltd. (1999) 107 Taxman 429 (AP) : (1999) 237 ITR 392 (AP-HC) : 1999 TaxPub(DT) 911 (AP-HC), Gujarat Gas Co. Ltd. v. Jt. CIT (2000) 111 Taxman 144 (Guj) : (2000) 245 ITR 84 (Guj-HC) : 2000 TaxPub(DT) 1344 (Guj-HC) and Sajjan India Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 89 Taxmann.com 21 (Mum-Trib.) : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 84 (Mum-Trib).

SUBSCRIBE TaxPublishers.inSUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT