Commissioner of Income Tax vs Mohinder Lal Haryani

The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated February 24, 2006, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench "B" Delhi in IT (SS) 362 (Delhi) of 2004 and IT (SS) 153 (Delhi) of 2005 relevant for the block period April 1, 1995 to February 26, 2002.

A search and seizure operation was carried out in respect of Deepsons group of cases which included the assessee. The premises of the assessee were searched on February 26, 2002, and the Income Tax Department recovered a voucher which showed certain payments having been made by the assessee to M/s. Mulberry Silk Affairs. Some jewellery was also found in the premises.

In so far as the document is concerned, the assessee denied knowledge of the document and in addition submitted that the firm M/s. Mulberry Silk Affairs had closed down several years ago. An affidavit was also submitted in this regard. As regards the jewellery, the assessee explained that he is from an affluent family and that apart Mrs. Asha Devi, the wife of the assessee was an adopted child and she had received jewellery at the time of her marriage both from her adoptive parents as well as from her natural parents. It was also submitted that the parties had been married for the last 25 years and during that period some jewellery had been acquired and gifted by friends and relatives, particularly on the silver anniversary.

The Assessing Officer did not accept the explanation with regard to the document recovered from the premises and partly accepted the explanation with regard to the jewellery. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) agreed with the view of the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal took into consideration the fact that M/s. Mulberry Silk Affairs had closed down several years ago and that this was not disputed.

It is submitted by learned Counsel for the assessee (and this appears from the record) that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had sought the comments of the Assessing Officer in respect of this document but no comments were offered. Learned Counsel for the assessee has also pointed out that the document did not mention any particular year and, therefore, its existence could not be attributed to the block period under consideration.

We find considerable force in the submission of learned Counsel for the assessee. There is no doubt that M/s. Mulberry Silk Affairs had closed down several years ago and the document could not necessarily be attributed to the block period in question. Moreover, the Assessing Officer maintained a silence when his comments were called for.

In so far as the jewellery is concerned, the Tribunal accepted the fact that the assessee received gifts from friends and relatives at the time of marriage, as also from the adoptive and natural parents of the bride as also on the occasion of completing 25 years of marriage. We do not find this explanation to be perverse in any manner whatsoever.

Under the circumstances, we find that no substantial question of law arises for consideration. Dismissed.