Itta/522/2011 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-V v. Sri Ch. Jawahar Babu

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKURANDTHE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. No.522 of 2011 DATED:16.2.2012 Between: The Commissioner of Income Tax Hyderabad … Appellant And Ch. Jawahar Babu … Respondent THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKURAND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO.522 OF 2011 JUDGMENT:(per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Shri Madan B. Lokur) The assessee had filed a return of income in which sale ofjewellery was not declared. 2. Subsequently, a search and seizure operation was carried out andas a result thereof, the assessee filed a return under Section 153A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 3. In this return, the assessee declared capital gains on sale ofjewellery. The assessee did not produce any documents in support ofthe sale and therefore the Assessing Officer did not accept the saletransaction as genuine. The Assessing Officer also took intoconsideration the fact that in the original return filed by the assessee,there was no mention about the sale of jewellery. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The assessee also moved anapplication for leading additional evidence. This was allowed by theCommissioner. 5. The assessee submitted that Sri A.B.S. Reddy and Smt. A.B.Neetha had gifted the jewellery in question to the assessee and thatwas then sold by him. It was pointed out that Sri A.B.S. Reddy and Smt.A.B. Neetha had declared the jewellery under the Voluntary Disclosureof Income Scheme (VDIS), 1997. The assessee also filed documents inthis regard as well as confirmation from the two donors with regard tothe declaration made under the VDIS. The Commissioner did notaccept the contention of the assessee and upheld the assessment order. 6. In a further appeal before the Tribunal, it was held that thedeclaration made by the two donors under the VDIS could not bedoubted. It was also held that merely because the jewellery had notbeen declared in the original return, it could not lead to any conclusionthat such a transaction, as brought on record by the assessee, had nottaken place. The Tribunal also relied upon the confirmation given bythe two donors and noted that they had not even been examined by theAssessing Officer to confirm the genuineness of the transaction. Looking to the material on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusionthat there was nothing to show that the transaction of sale of jewelleryentered into by the assessee on which capital gains were declared, wasnot a genuine transaction. 7. In our opinion, the present appeal filed by the Revenue underSection 260A of the Act raises only an issue of fact, although it may be amixed issue of fact and law regarding the genuineness of thetransaction. The Tribunal having come to the conclusion that thetransaction was genuine, there being no other material on record tosuggest to the contrary, we are of the opinion that in any event nosubstantial question of law arises for consideration. 8. We are not inclined to entertain this appeal. 9. Dismissed. __________________ MADAN B. LOKUR, CJ __________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J 16-2-2012 bnr