2011 (7) TMI 142

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ery in the form of “stree dhan” or on other occasions such as birth of a child etc - Decided in favour of the assessee
MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI, MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA, JJ. For Appellant : Mr. Shashi M. Kapila, Advocate with Mr. R.R. Maurya, Advocate For Respondent: Mr.Kiran Babu, Sr. Standing Counsel A.K. SIKRI, J. (ORAL) 1. Admit on the following substantial questions of law:- "(i) Whether the order of the Ld. ITAT is perverse in holding that the entire jewellery found during the search belonged to the appellant and not his wife and was undisclosed income of AY 2006-07 without any evidence? (ii) Whether the Ld. ITAT erred in wrongly upholding the addition of the entire 506.9 grams of jewellery pertained to AY 1996-97 without ap .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ssessment year 2006-07. The assessee approached the CIT (A) by way of appeal against all the additions made by the Assessing Officer. The CIT (A) disposed of the appeals by consolidated order in respect of all these assessment years and deleted the all the additions except two namely addition of Rs. 3,87,364/- on account of jewellery found during the search and Rs.50,000/- on account of receipt of booking at Tivoli Garden. Both, the assessee as well as the Revenue challenged the orders of the CIT (A) by filing their respective appeals. In these appeals the two additions sustained by the CIT (A) are affirmed by the ITAT as well. In this appeal preferred by the assessee against the impugned orders dated 17th September, 2010, we are concerned .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... llery is considered at Rs. 3,87,364/-(506/900 x 6,93,582) u/s 69A of the Act". The CIT (A) confirmed this addition stating that the AO had been fair in accepting the part of jewellery as unexplained. The ITAT has also endorsed the aforesaid view. Learned counsel for appellant Ms. Kapila submitted that there was no basis for the Assessing Officer to accept the ownership of the gold jewellery to the extent of 400 grams only as "reasonable allowance" and treat the remaining jewellery of Rs. 506.900 as unexplained. She also submitted that another glaring fact ignored by the Assessing Officer as well as other authorities was that as the department had conducted a search of all the financial dealings which were within his knowledge and no paper .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X