9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 761X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ery and not on the basis of quantitative tally. The assessee in this case explained that ₹ 3 lakhs is the value of 60 tolas as gold ornaments as on 3.7.2002, the date of her marriage, which was duly declared by her, in her I.T.returns. The value of these 60 tolas, as on the date of search is fixed at ₹ 11,59,032/- by the valuer. Deduction is granted by the Ld.CIT(A) to such value of ₹ 11,59,032/-. As regards jewellery worth ₹ 13,02,245/- the Ld.CIT(A) ignored the fact that at the time of search no statement was recorded from the assessee and hence there was no occasion for her to state that part of the jewellery belong to her mother in law/ father in law or to specify the items of such jewellery. AT the first available opportunity the assessee had stated her position. Under the circumstances no adverse inference can be drawn against the assessee. Addition made on account of unexplained investments in jewellery in the hands of the assessee, is devoid of merit. - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A.No. 5279/DEL/2012 - - - Dated:- 17-6-2015 - Shri I.C. Sudhir and Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, JJ. For the Petitioner: Sh.Salil Agrawal, Adv. And Sh.Shailesh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Member Jewellery held as on 31.3.1999 in grams Value of jewellery held as on 31.3.1999 value as on 14.10.2008 as per rate applied by the valuer at the time of search Rs. Chameli Devi Since this includes Dimond studded Jewellery. This has been valued at ₹ 34,06,696/- on I 31.03.20081 Therefore, value on the date of search is adopted the same. 1,555.01 34,06,696/- Jewellery declared at the time of search pertaining to the period from 1.4.2008 to 13.10.2008 in the case of Chameli Devi. 2,400.00 30,00,000/- Vijay Jindal Jewellery held since1.4.1999 (Let out of VDIS) 409.00 5,11,250/- Jewellery declared at the time of search pertaining to the period from 1.4.2008 to 13.10.2008 in the case of Vijay Jindal. 2,400.00 30,00,000/- Sheela Devi 603.70 8,01,900/- Satpal: Old 70 tol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s unexplained jewellery and is required to be added as income of the appellant from undisclosed sources on account of unexplained investment. The addition of ₹ 22,02,245/- is thus restricted to the extent of ₹ 13,02,245/- . 5. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before us on the following grounds. 1. That the ALd.CIT(A) has erred both in law and on facts in sustaining an addition of ₹ 13,02,245/- representing the value of jewellery found during search and treated as unexplained. 2. That in sustaining the addition of ₹ 13,02,245/- the authorities below have failed to appreciate that in joint families living together in the same house jewellery is not necessarily kept in watertight separate rooms/lockers, and it is the total jewellery found from the family residing in the same premises is to be explained. 3. That addition of ₹ 13,02,245/- having been wrongly sustained be deleted. 6. Heard Shri Salil Agrawal, Advocate, the Ld.Counsel for the assessee and Shri Vivek Wadekar, Ld.CIT, D.R. on behalf of the Revenue. 7. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee reiterated the contentions raised by him before the lower authorities. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hen the jewellery found in one room cannot be treated as only belonging to the lady living in the room simply because annexure to Panchnama has been drawn in the name of the lady, though no warrant has been issued against the lady. (c) It is clear that certain jewellery recorded in the panchnama drawn in the name of the lady, was considered as jewellery of male members on whose name warrant of search has been drawn up. This is evident from the assessment of Shri Vijay Jindal and Shri Sunil Jindal. It is an admitted fact that in the room of the mother in law and father in law of the assessee, jewellery that was found, was lesser than what was declared and treated as explained, while in the other room when the son and daughter in law reside, the jewellery of the same value was found. The Annexure discloses what was declared by the daughter in law. (d) Reliance is placed on the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in the case of Smt. Chameli Devi, the mother in law of the assessee, and the assessment order in the case of Sh. Sunil Jindal. 7.1. Ld.DR on the other hand submitted that, on the date of the search, the assessee did not explain that the excess jewellery actually belongs to her ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s extracted below. Chart showing explanation in respect of jewellery found in search on 14.10.2008 at II C-95, Nehru Nagar, Ghaziabad tendered by all the members of the family in their respective assessment proceedings and position of assessment and appeals before CIT(A) in the case of each member . Name of the member Jewellery held as on 31.3.1999 in grams Value as on 14.10.2008 as per rate applied by the Valuer at the time of search IN Rupees Position of assessment in the cases of each member Final position as on date VijayJindal Jewellery held since 1.4.99 (Left out of VD IS) 409.00 511,250 Required to explain jewellery for value of ₹ 9536372/- i.e. jewellery found from the rooms of Vijay Jindal and his wife and Sunil Jindal and Ruta Jindal (the appellant) Accepting the explanation of the assessee, no addition was made on account of jewellery by AO Copy of assessment order is on pages 55-57 of paper book. Jewellery declared at the time of search pertaining to the period from 1.4.2008 to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t be said to be kept in water tight compartments in joint hindu families and that the jewellery of one family member is given to the other member for use only and that the jewellery found in the possession of one member could belong to another member of the family, is a possible explanation. Further the amount of jewellery found short in the hands of the mother in law and father in law of the assessee tallies in value, with the jewellery found in excess in the room of the assessee. Regarding non tallying of the items of jewellery the explanation that the items are changed frequently by the ladies of the house, is a possible explanation. In any event the additions in this case was made on the basis of values of jewellery and not on the basis of quantitative tally. The assessee in this case explained that ₹ 3 lakhs is the value of 60 tolas as gold ornaments as on 3.7.2002, the date of her marriage, which was duly declared by her, in her I.T.returns. The value of these 60 tolas, as on the date of search is fixed at ₹ 11,59,032/- by the valuer. Deduction is granted by the Ld.CIT(A) to such value of ₹ 11,59,032/-. As regards jewellery worth ₹ 13,02,245/- the Ld.C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
