9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (12) TMI 623 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained investment in two watches - same were not included in the valuation report taken at the time of opting for VDIS Scheme - CIT(A) deleted addition as agreed to the submissions of assessee that said two watches being part of declared watches in the Wealth Tax Return cannot be taken as unexplained investment of assessee - HELD THAT - CIT(DR) could not rather did not controvert a factual position discernable from the document submitted by the assessee which is reconciliation statement of watches during the course of search with the watches declared in the Wealth Tax Return show that the watches at serial no. 1 6 were part of valuation report as on 31.03.2013 and these were listed at item no. 48 50 respectively in the valuation report no. 1 and the watches at serial no. 1 6 were taken in exchange of these two watches already shown in the Wealth Tax Return. In such a factual position we are of the view that the ld. CIT(A) has granted relief to the assessee on the basis of correct appreciation of facts and circumstances and by considering the Wealth Tax Return, valuation report and reconciliation statement which clearly reveals that the watches at serial no. 48 50 declared in the wealth tax return were exchanged and listed at serial no. 1 6 of reconciliation statements with the all details of exchanged watches. Therefore the ld. CIT(A) was right in granting relief to the assessee. Accordingly ground no. 1 2 of revenue are dismissed. Unexplained Jewellery found from the locker - CIT(A) deleted addition - HELD THAT - The locker was last operative on 28.06.2012 and thereafter it was operative on 21.01.2020 during course of search seizure operation which was conducted on 19.01.2020 on Bharat Hotels Group including the assessee. From the date of search i.e. 19.01.2020 the block period of six years is AY 2014-15 to 2019-20 and the subsequent year 2020-21 is the year of search. Thus the jewellery purchased or acquired before 28.06.2012 cannot be stretched and taken into consideration as unexplained jewellery in the hands of assessee neither in the year of search i.e. present AY 2020-21 nor even in the six block assessment years. We are unable to see valid reason to interfere with the findings arrived by the ld. CIT(A) and thus we uphold the same. Our conclusion also gets support from various judgment of CIT vs. Vivek Kumar Aggarwal 2015 (2) TMI 590 - DELHI HIGH COURT .Therefore ground no. 3 of Revenue is also dismissed. Unexplained foreign currency found during the search - CIT(A) has granted relief to the assessee - HELD THAT - we note that the Assessing Officer made addition by observing that the foreign currency found seized during the course of search seizure operation whereas the ld. CIT(A) after considering the explanation of assessee concluded that the foreign currency was found seized from the resident of Mrs. Ritu Suri and she signed the inventory of seized material including the foreign currency. It is also pertinent to mention that the ld. CIT(A) further noted that on conclusion of assessment proceedings Mrs. Ritu Suri filed an application u/s. 132B of the Act before the authorities concerned requesting the returned the seized movable properties including the foreign currency. This factual position has not been controverted neither by the Assessing Officer nor by the ld. CIT(DR) before us. Revenue ground no. 4 5 of revenue are also dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition on account of unexplained investment in two watches. 2. Deletion of addition on account of unexplained jewellery found in a locker. 3. Deletion of addition on account of unexplained foreign currency found during a search. Summary: Issue 1: Unexplained Investment in Two Watches The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,29,850/- for unexplained investment in two watches, arguing they were not included in the valuation report at the time of opting for the VDIS Scheme and were not declared in the Wealth Tax return. The CIT(A) deleted this addition after verifying that the two watches were indeed part of the declared watches in the Wealth Tax return. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the watches were correctly included in the Wealth Tax Return and there was no valid reason to interfere with the findings. Issue 2: Unexplained Jewellery Found in Locker The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) wrongly deleted the addition of Rs. 1,15,36,269/- for jewellery found in locker no. 1984, U&I Vaults, Delhi, claiming it was part of the jewellery declared in the Wealth Tax Return/VDIS disclosure. The CIT(A) found that the jewellery was last operated on 26.06.2012, beyond the block assessment period, and thus could not be considered unexplained for the AY 2020-21. The Tribunal upheld this finding, citing relevant judicial precedents and confirming that the jewellery was acquired before the block assessment period, making the addition unsustainable. Issue 3: Unexplained Foreign Currency Found During Search The Revenue challenged the deletion of Rs. 5,51,570/- for unexplained foreign currency, arguing that the CIT(A) relied on a letter from Mrs. Ritu Suri claiming ownership after the assessment proceedings. The CIT(A) noted that the foreign currency was found at Mrs. Ritu Suri's residence and she had signed the inventory of the seized material. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no valid reason to interfere with the conclusion that the foreign currency belonged to Mrs. Ritu Suri and not the assessee. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, confirming the CIT(A)'s deletions of the additions for unexplained investment in watches, jewellery, and foreign currency. The order was pronounced on 06.09.2023.
|
