2022 (8) TMI 1510 - AT - Income Tax

Rectification of mistake - assessee pleaded that the Bench has inadvertently missed out recording of a specific finding with regard to deletion of addition on account of unexplained cash based on the findings of ld. CIT(A) which were final and had not be challenged by the Revenue - HELD THAT - We hold that since the decision of the ld. CIT(A) has not been disputed in the order dealt only with the jewellery found and its accountability thereof no specific finding is required. However, in the interest of justice, we clarify that the Bench had not disputed the findings of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue. Addition on account of cash/unexplained jewellery as made by the AO confirmed by ld. CIT(A), the Tribunal give relief of 1788 gms of jewellery and sustained value to the tune 740 gms of jewellery and assessee explained that 2470 gms of jewellery belongs to Kinty Suri the wife of the assessee which needs to be considered separately - We find that this issue has been duly considered by Tribunal wherein the Wealth Tax return of Surpreet Suri and Kinty Suri have been duly considered which declared total amount of 2481 gms and the fact that Kinty Suri lockers revealed jewellery of 2470 gms and the combined locker of Kinty Suri and Surpreet Suri revealed 1151 gms of jewellery. The jewellery belonging to Kinty Suri has been given due benefit of owing to the Wealth Tax Return. It is a factual matter on record, all the case laws quoted by the assessee have been duly considered before coming to a final decision. In the result, the MA of the assessee is liable to be dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Deletion of addition of Rs.26,75,000 on account of unexplained cash.
2. Addition of Rs.2,10,33,076 on account of cash/unexplained jewellery.

Issue 1: Deletion of addition of Rs.26,75,000 on account of unexplained cash:
The Miscellaneous Application pertained to an earlier order where the assessee claimed that a specific finding was missed regarding the deletion of an addition of Rs.26,75,000 on account of unexplained cash, based on the findings of the ld. CIT(A). The Tribunal clarified that since the ld. CIT(A)'s decision was not disputed and the order only dealt with jewellery, no specific finding was necessary. However, it was noted that the Bench did not dispute the ld. CIT(A)'s findings on this issue, ensuring justice was served.

Issue 2: Addition of Rs.2,10,33,076 on account of cash/unexplained jewellery:
Regarding the addition of Rs.2,10,33,076 on account of cash/unexplained jewellery, the Tribunal provided a detailed analysis. It was observed that the Wealth Tax return of Surpreet Suri and Kinty Suri had been duly considered, declaring a total amount of 2481 gms. Specifically, Kinty Suri's lockers revealed jewellery of 2470 gms, and the combined locker of Kinty Suri and Surpreet Suri showed 1151 gms of jewellery. The Tribunal acknowledged the jewellery belonging to Kinty Suri separately, granting due benefit owing to the Wealth Tax Return. All case laws quoted by the assessee were considered before reaching a final decision. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Application of the assessee was dismissed, affirming the decision on the addition of cash/unexplained jewellery.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment addressed the issues of deletion of unexplained cash addition and the addition of cash/unexplained jewellery meticulously. The decision-making process ensured that all relevant factors, including the Wealth Tax returns and specific ownership of jewellery, were taken into account before reaching a final decision. The dismissal of the Miscellaneous Application signified the Tribunal's thorough consideration of the matter at hand.