Madras High Court
D.Suneeta vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income ... on 8 March, 2022
Tax Case Appeal No.45 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.03.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
Tax Case Appeal No.45 of 2013
D.Suneeta ...Appellant
-vs-
The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,
Central Circle II (5),
Chennai - 600 085. ...Respondent
Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961
against the order dated 03.06.2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal, “B” Bench, Chennai in I.T.A.No.7/Mds/2010.
For Appellant : Mr.Venkatanarayanan
for Mr.Subbaraya Aiyar
For Respondent : Mr.Karthik Ranganathan
Senior Standing Counsel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/9
Tax Case Appeal No.45 of 2013
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the court was delivered by R. MAHADEVAN, J.)
This is an appeal filed by the appellant / assessee, assailing the order
dated 03.06.2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench,
Chennai, in I.T.(SS)A.No.7/Mds/2010, for the block period from 01.04.1996 to
02.01.2003.
2.According to the appellant, a search under section 132 of the Income-
tax Act, was conducted in her premises on 02.01.2003, in which, 4582 grams of
jewellery was found; and out of the same, 1387 grams belonged to the
appellant; and she explained the source of the same as if 750 grams was
received from her parents, 250 grams from her mother-in-law and 350 grams
from her sister residing abroad. Based on the materials recovered, the
proceedings under section 158BD was initiated and a notice was issued, to
which the appellant filed her return admitting undisclosed income 'nil'. Upon
scrutiny of the same, the assessment was completed under section 158BD r/w
section 143(3) on 28.02.2007, determining the undisclosed income at
Rs.4,75,780/-, by adding the value of 887 grams of jewellery of Rs.4,07,880/-
and Rs.67,900/- towards unexplained agricultural income. Challenging the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tax Case Appeal No.45 of 2013
same, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income
Tax (Appeals), who by order dated 27.12.2009, deleted the addition made in
respect of agricultural income, but confirmed the addition made in respect of
887 grams of jewellery. The said order of the appellate authority was also
affirmed by the Tribunal, in the appeal filed by the appellant. Therefore, the
appellant is before this court with this tax case appeal.
3.On 25.02.2013, this Tax Case Appeal was admitted on the following
substantial questions of law:
"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the
case, the Tribunal was right in law in confirming the addition
made in respect of jewellery found at the time of search
without appreciating the explanation offered by the assessee
and the guidelines issued by CBDT vide Instruction No.1916
dated 11.05.1994 in this regard?"
4.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the
Tribunal erred in confirming the addition without appreciating the explanation
given by the appellant in the sworn statement recorded from her on 06.01.2003
and without considering her status and hence, the same is liable to be quashed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tax Case Appeal No.45 of 2013
5.The learned senior standing counsel appearing for the
respondent/department submitted that after analysing the entire materials
available on record, the Tribunal affirmed the order passed by the CIT(A), with
respect to addition of Rs.4,07,880/- representing the value of 887 grams of
jewellery, as undisclosed income of the appellant. Placing reliance on the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v.
P.Mohanakala [(2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC)], the learned counsel submitted that
the re-appreciation of evidence and substitution of the findings by the High
Court was impermissible and that, when once explanation offered by the
assessee was found unsatisfactory, the value of the jewellery was to be charged
to income-tax as the income of the assessee. Thus, according to the learned
counsel, there is no requirement to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact
arrived at by the authorities below.
6.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
7.The short question that arises for consideration herein is relating to the
addition of Rs.4,07,880/- towards the value of 887 grams of jewellery as
undisclosed income of the assessee, by the assessing officer as confirmed by
the CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tax Case Appeal No.45 of 2013
8.There is no dispute with regard to the search and seizure of 1387 grams
of jewellery in the premises of the appellant on 02.01.2003. The appellant
claimed that the said jewels were received from her parents, mother-in-law and
sister on various occasions, by way of gift. However, the assessing officer
found that there was no evidence adduced by the appellant to support her claim
and hence, after deducting 500 grams as gift received by the appellant, the
value of balance 887 grams of jewels at Rs.4,07,880/- was added as undisclosed
income. The said addition by the assessing officer in the assessment order was
confirmed by the CIT(A) by order dated 27.11.2009, which was also affirmed
by the Tribunal. The findings of the Tribunal are quoted below for ready
reference:
“We find that no evidence whatsoever for receiving gift
was brought on record either before us or before the lower
authorities. Further, no material was brought before us to show
the amount of income which was disclosed by either of the
parents of the assessee and parents-in-law of the assessee at the
time of marriage or thereabout. In the absence of any such
material, we do not find any good reason to interfere with the
orders of the lower authorities.”
9.Admittedly, the CBDT, vide Instruction No.1916 dated 11.05.1996 has
directed not to seize jewellery to the extent of 500 grams in the case of married
women. Further, the appellant did not produce any bills / books of accounts /
document, except her oral statement, to substantiate her claim that the entire
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tax Case Appeal No.45 of 2013
jewels belonged to her. In such circumstances, this court finds no good reason
to disagree with the findings so rendered by the Tribunal.
10.It is also to be noted that the concurrent finding of fact arrived at by
all the authorities below cannot be slightly interfered with by the High Court. In
this context, it would be relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme court in Mohanakala case cited on the side of the respondent,
wherein, it was observed as under:
“22.Whether the High Court was justified in
interfering with the concurrent finding of fact arrived at by
all the authorities including the Tribunal? The Assessing
Officer found that all the so-called gifts came from Ariavan
Thotan and Suprotoman. The assessees did not declare that
they are the alias of Sampathkumar. It is only an
afterthought they have come forward with the said plea.
The Assessing officer also found that the gifts were not real
in nature. Various surroundings circumstances have been
relied upon by the Assessing officer to reject the
explanation offered by the assessees. The Commissioner of
Appeals confirmed the findings and conclusion drawn by
the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal speaking though its
Senior Vice President concurred with the findings of fact.
The findings in our considered opinion, are based on the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tax Case Appeal No.45 of 2013
material available on record and not on any conjectures
and surmises. They are not imaginary as sought to be
contended.
23. Relying on the decisions of this Court in Bejoy
Gopal Mukherji v. Pratul Chandra Ghose AIR 1953 SC
153 and Orient Distributors v. Bank of India Ltd. AIR
1979 SC 867, Shri Iyer, learned senior counsel contended
that issue relating to the propriety of legal conclusion that
could be drawn on basis of proved facts gives rise to a
question of law and, therefore, the High Court is justified in
interfering in the matter since the authorities below failed
to draw a proper and logical inference from the proved
facts. We are unable to persuade ourselves to accept the
submission. The findings of fact arrived at by the
authorities below are based on proper appreciation of the
facts and the material available on record and surrounding
circumstances. The doubtful nature of the transaction and
the manner in which the sums were found credited in the
books of account maintained by the assessee have been
duly taken into consideration by the authorities below. The
transactions though apparent were held to be not real one.
May be the money came by way of bank cheques and paid
through the process of banking transaction but that itself is
of no consequence."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tax Case Appeal No.45 of 2013
11.Thus, the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the authorities
below based on material evidence, cannot be found fault with; and there is no
question of law, much less substantial question of law arisen for consideration
in this appeal.
12.In fine, this tax case appeal stands dismissed. No costs.
[R.M.D,J.] [J.S.N.P., J.]
10.03.2022
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes / No
gba/msr
To
1.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,
Central Circle II (5),
Chennai - 600 085.
2. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Madras “B” Bench, Chennai.
3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tax Case Appeal No.45 of 2013
R. MAHADEVAN, J.
AND
J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
gba/msr
Tax Case Appeal No.45 of 2013
10.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
