9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (6) TMI 721 - AT - Income TaxAddition on account of Gold and Silver Jewellery and cash found in search and seizure proceedings - assessee filed the returned income u/s.153A comprises of the additional income on account of unexplained investment in jewellery and unexplained investment in construction of house - HELD THAT - Assessee vide answer to question no. 47 to buy the mental peace at the time of search stated that he surrendered a sum of Rs. 70,00,000/- in respect of these valuables. The bench noted working placed on record by the assessee read with the CBDT guideline for not seizure of gold ornaments wherein it is stated that per person in a family a married women 500 gms and unmarried woman 250 gms and male member 100 gms be considered as reasonable holding. Thus, accordingly 3 married lady and two male member (500 3 100 2 1700 grams) 1700 grams holding be considered as reasonable as against this the assessee in the working submitted and reproduced here in above claimed 1450 grams which cannot be denied to the assessee and gold ornaments declared in the HUF also claimed as deduction from the total gold ornaments / valuable found and the balance amount of Rs. 38,02,030/- is offered for tax by the assessee and in respect of silver items / valuation the weight of the found items comes to 26,983/- out of which 17,400/- declared in wealth tax return and balance amount of Rs. 3,01,865/- considered as income and offered for total value for which we do not find any infirmity in the working provided by the assessee as the value and quantity was not disputed and only the grams were disputed which we found to be in order and we are of the considered view that considering these factual aspect of the matter there is no need to sustained the addition merely on the reasons that the assessee has at the time of recording of statement u/s.132(4) admitted lumpsum sum as unexplained investment which we do not found correct and the working which is based on the evidence and guidelines of the CBDT cannot be ignored and therefore, we direct the ld. AO to delete the addition of Rs. 28,96,104/- made in the assessment order. In terms of the discussion so recorded the ground no. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed. Addition of cash found from the premises searched - The bench noted at the time of search the assessee was confronted about the source of cash found for an amount of Rs. 5,41,000/-. Wherein the assessee while answering the question no. 35 submitted that Rs. 1,50,000/- belong to M/s. Sarvodaya Agrotech India Limited. AO considering the submission of the assessee and made the addition of Rs. 3 lac in the hands of the assessee - CIT(A) sustained the addition of Rs. 2 lac though he has hold that the assessee may be considered to have savings of Rs. 2 lac considering the stature and payment of wealth tax even in past but while doing so out of the total addition of Rs. 3 lac he sustained the addition of Rs. 2 lac. Thus, in fact though the ld. CIT(A) considered the saving of the assessee at Rs. 2 lac but in fact given the relief for addition of Rs. 1 lac only. Thus, considering the overall facts of the present case of the assessee the bench noted that the assessee has explained that out of total cash of Rs. 5,41,000/- found Rs. 1,50,000/ claimed to have been belonging to the M/s. Sarvodaya Agrotech and seizure of Rs 3 lac made which the ld. AO has added in the income of the assessee. CIT(A) has already granted the relief to Rs. 2 lac to the assessee considering the income of the assessee, number of family members in the family and the social status of the assessee we do not find any reason to sustained even the addition of Rs. 2 lac in hands of the assessee when the assessee has fairly disclosed the disclosed income and has co-operated to the revenue and thus considering the overall aspect of the matter and considering the fact that in past the assessee is filling the wealth tax return also, thus we are of the considered view that the assessee is found to have been residing with his mother, wife, son and son s wife the holding of cash and there sustaining the addition of Rs. 2 lac does hold found merits and therefore, we do not agree with finding of the lower authority and direct the ld. AO to delete addition on account of cash. Ground no. 2 raised by the assessee is allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Addition of Rs. 28,96,104/- as unexplained investment in jewellery u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act. 2. Addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- as unexplained cash u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act. Summary: Issue 1: Addition of Rs. 28,96,104/- as unexplained investment in jewellery u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act The assessee challenged the addition of Rs. 28,96,104/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) and sustained by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] as unexplained investment in jewellery. The AO noted that during a search and seizure operation, jewellery valued at Rs. 1,11,64,994/- was found, and the assessee admitted jewellery worth Rs. 70,00,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act. However, in the return of income, the assessee declared only Rs. 41,03,896/- as unexplained investment, leading to the addition of the remaining Rs. 28,96,104/-. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's addition, stating that the assessee failed to provide acceptable evidence to explain the source of the jewellery. The CIT(A) noted that the jewellery declared in the wealth tax return was less than the jewellery found and that the AO had already considered the CBDT circular regarding reasonable holding of jewellery. The Tribunal, however, found merit in the assessee's reconciliation chart, which justified the declaration of Rs. 41,03,896/- based on the CBDT guidelines and the evidence provided. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 28,96,104/-. Issue 2: Addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- as unexplained cash u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act The assessee also challenged the addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- sustained by the CIT(A) out of the total cash of Rs. 5,41,000/- found during the search. The AO had added Rs. 3,00,000/- as unexplained cash, while the CIT(A) granted relief of Rs. 1,00,000/- and sustained the addition of Rs. 2,00,000/-. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had explained that Rs. 1,50,000/- belonged to M/s. Sarvodaya Agrotech India Limited and that the remaining cash should be considered as savings of the family. Considering the size and status of the family, the Tribunal found no reason to sustain the addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- and directed the AO to delete the addition. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, directing the AO to delete the additions of Rs. 28,96,104/- and Rs. 2,00,000/- made u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act. The order was pronounced in the open Court on 18/03/2024.
|
