2023 (5) TMI 252 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 69B - Unexplained jewellery found during the course of search - HELD THAT - As relying on case of Ashok Chaddha 2011 (7) TMI 142 - DELHI HIGH COURT withdrawals made month after month cannot be brushed aside lightly and which are evident from 202 to 204 of the paper book and it can be seen that the withdrawals are enormous and needless to mention the returned income of the assessee - The withdrawals and the returned income speak volumes about the richness of the family. Considering in particular the wealth tax returns viz-a-viz the jewellery found. We do not find any merit in the impugned addition made by the AO we accordingly direct the AO to delete the entire addition - Decided in favour of assessee. Six paintings found at the residence of the assessee - paintings were found at the time of search which were got valued by the department from two different valuers - AO adopted the valuation made by the yellow flute whereas the CIT(A) directed the AO to adopt the valuation of Delhi Art Gallery - HELD THAT - We find that the DVO has also not pointed out any defect in the valuation report filed by the assessee nor there is any evidence on record to show that the AO has examined the valuation of the assessee. It can be seen from the two DVO s report that both the valuer of the department have valued the painting differently. This show that the opinion of the experts can also differ on the same set of facts In our considered opinion if the paintings are purchased in the year 2004 then the value cannot be added in the year under consideration more over even the department valuers have not expressed any reservations on the year of purchase shown by the valuer of the assessee, we do not find any reason to take any adverse view on that. The status of the family have already been explained while adjudicating ground No.1 (supra) - no merits in the impugned addition - Decided in favour of assessee. Addition u/s.69B of seized wrist watches - The status of the family, the returned income and the withdrawals have been discussed by us while adjudicating ground No.1 of assesse s appeal in detail wherein reference has been made to the judgment of the Hon ble High court of Delhi of Ashok Chaddha (supra). For our detailed discussion there in considering the status and the richness of the family we do not find any merit in the impugned addition of Rs. 1.50 lacs and the AO is directed to delete the same.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Addition of Rs. 3,31,778/- u/s 69B on account of jewellery.
2. Addition of Rs. 37,50,000/- u/s 69B on account of paintings.
3. Addition of Rs. 1,50,000/- u/s 69B on account of wrist watches.

Summary:

Issue 1: Addition of Rs. 3,31,778/- u/s 69B on account of jewellery

The assessee challenged the addition of Rs. 3,31,778/- made by the AO under section 69B for jewellery found during a search operation. The jewellery was claimed to be part of the Wealth Tax return and books of accounts. The CIT(A) accepted most of the reconciliation provided by the assessee but sustained the addition for colour stones/pearls. The Tribunal found that the jewellery declared in the Wealth Tax Return was more than the jewellery found during the search. The Tribunal cited the Delhi High Court's judgment in Ashok Chaddha Vs. ITO, which accepted the explanation for jewellery as "streedhan" and normal accumulation over years. Considering the family's status and income, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete the entire addition of Rs. 3,31,778/-.

Issue 2: Addition of Rs. 37,50,000/- u/s 69B on account of paintings

The AO made an addition of Rs. 37,50,000/- for six paintings found during the search, based on valuations by two different valuers. The CIT(A) directed the AO to adopt the valuation by Delhi Art Gallery. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the valuation reports and the lack of specific defects pointed out by the AO. It also considered that one painting was purchased by cheque and that the family had substantial withdrawals and income. The Tribunal found no merit in the addition and directed the AO to delete the same.

Issue 3: Addition of Rs. 1,50,000/- u/s 69B on account of wrist watches

The AO added Rs. 1,50,000/- for wrist watches found during the search, questioning the source of acquisition. The assessee argued that the family's substantial income and withdrawals justified the possession of the watches. The Tribunal, referencing its earlier discussion on the family's status and the judgment in Ashok Chaddha, found no merit in the addition and directed the AO to delete it.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal and dismissed the revenue's appeal, directing the AO to delete all the impugned additions. The order was pronounced in the open court on 03.05.2023.