Commissioner Of Income-Tax-I v. Shree Prakash Soni

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR APPELLANT: :: O R D E R :: RESPONDENT: Commissioner of Income-tax-I v.Shree Prakash Soni -D.B. INCOMETAX APPEAL NO.29 OF 2007 :: Date of Order: 08[th] January 2015 :: PRESENT HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOVIND MATHURHON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL Mr Sheetal Kumbhat, for the appellantMr Anjay Kothari, for the respondent By the order dated 13[th] September 2005, the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur arrived atthe conclusion that the Commissioner of Income-tax wasjustified in concluding that the Assessing Officer was notjustified in treating the gold ornaments, belonging to thefamily diety and purchased by Shri Chandra Prakash, asunexplained investment. In appeal giving challenge to that,this Court by order dated 03[rd] April 2007 settled asubstantial question of law in terms that - “Whether on thefacts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal wasjustified in deleting the entire additions made by theAssessing Officer as modified by the CIT (Appeals) onaccount of unexplained gold ornaments found during searchof the assessee's premises, is perverse and is vitiated asthe same has been arrived at without giving any opportunity by the Assessing Officer to controvert the factsbrought on record by the assessee for the first time beforethe Tribunal.” From perusal of the order passed by the Commissionerof Income-tax it appears that the issue aforesaid was notraised before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal at the firstinstance but was canvassed even before the first appellateauthority i.e. the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals).The Commissioner of Income-tax, after hearing learnedcounsel for the appellant as well as departmental representative, arrived at the conclusion as under: “I hold that the AO was not justified in not acceptingthe explanation of the appellant in respect of goldornaments weighing 241 grams, which the appellanthad claimed that the same belonged to the familydiety. In fact, at the time of search also such goldornaments were there on the family diety and thesame were also not seized. The family deity is quiteold and it seems the custom of appellant's family.The AO was also not justified in drawing adverseinference in respect of gold ornaments weighing 150grams purchased by Sh. Chander Prakash in respectof whom proceedings u/s 148 were already initiated.Accordingly, in my view, addition on account ofunexplained investment in gold ornaments belongingto the family diety and purchased by Sh. ChanderPrakash is not justified...” The Commissioner of Income-tax noticed that theAssessing Officer added the ornaments belonging to thefamily diety and also purchased by Shri Chandra Prakash asunexplained investment though the material was availableto justify the purchase of the ornaments by Shri ChandraPrakash. The facts mentioned by the Commissioner of Income-tax as noticed above and also the averments contained inthe memo of appeal indicate that necessary opportunity wasallowed to the Assessing Officer to meet the stand of theassessee about the ornaments purchased by Shri ChandraPrakash. Looking to this factual background, the questionframed is answered in terms that adequate opportunity wasavailable to the Assessing Officer to meet with thecontentions raised by the assessee as accepted by theCommissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as well as by theIncome-tax Appellate Tribunal. The appeal is dismissedaccordingly. ,J. ,J.