The assessee sold the jewellery which she has inherited from her late mother-in law. Copy of the will was also furnished. The assessee claimed exemption under section 54F of the in respect of Long term capital gains on sale of jewelley. The AO assessed the sale consideration as income from other sources on the ground that the assessee has failed to furnish the evidence as regards acquisition of jewellery by will. On appeal the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal. On appeal the Tribunal held that Assessee having produced the notarised Will of her deceased mother-in-law whereby she has inherited a portion of jewellery of her mother-in-law, and the assessee having shown the said inherited jewellery in her WT return filed after the first year of inheritance, it has to be accepted that there existed a long-term capital asset and the subsequent sale resulted into long-term capital gains. The Tribunal also held that the Assessing Officer cannot ask the evidence beyond time specified in R. 6F(5) (i.e six years ) Tribunal held that since the valuation report obtained from Nayarathan Jewellers (P) Ltd valuing the jewellery as on 31st March, 2015 does not tally with the quantity and weights of jewels inherited through the Will, the assessee is directed to reconcile the quantum of jewellery with the valuation report issued by Nayarathan Jewellers (P) Ltd, issue is remitted to the CIT(A) to decide the same afresh. (AY. 2016-17)
ACIT v. Sharada Narayanan (2024) 229 TTJ 774 / 238 DTR 229 / 38 NYPTTJ 485 (Bang)(Trib)
S.54F : Capital gains-Investment in a residential house-Notarized Will-Sale of inherited jewellery-The Assessing Officer cannot ask the evidence beyond time specified in R. 6F(5)-Directed the assessee to reconcile the quantum of jewellery with the valuation report, matter remanded to the CIT(A) [S. 45, 56, R.6F(5)]
Leave a Reply