TARA DEVI GOENKA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This reference arises in respect of the assessment year 1964-65 for which the relevant year was D.S.Y. 2020.

(2.) In that year of assessment the assessee disclosed in her wealth-tax return jewellery worth Rs. 65,000. The ITO required the assessee to explain the source of the acquisition of the said jewellery. A month's time was sought for, but ultimately no explanation whatsoever was tendered by her. As a result, the ITO assessed the entire value of jewellery as her income from undisclosed sources.

(3.) The assessee preferred an appeal to the AAC. It was contended before him that the addition was entirely presumptuous and was not supported by any evidence. It was further contended before him that the jewelleries were received at the time of the assessee's marriage from her grandfather, father and father-in-law. The AAC, after accepting that the assessee belonged to a rich family and she must have received some ornaments in her marriage and that it was difficult for her to prove the source of acquisition after 35 years of her marriage when some of her relations making gift or presentations to her were dead, held that she could normally have possessed jewelleries worth Rs. 25,000. The balance of Rs. 40,000 was treated as her acquisition from unexplained sources, and confirmed the addition to that extent.