9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 761X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... repared in the names of ladies only. Details of jewellery found are as under:- Jewellery Found as on 14.10.2008 Name Jewellery found on the date of seizer 14.10.2008 Value on the date of 14.10.2008 Jewellery Seized Value of Jewellery Seized Jewellery not Seized Value of Jewellery not seized Chameli Devi 4128.70 Grams 7,06,837/- 2915.8 Grams 42,55,053/- 1212.9 Grams 28,07,780/- Sheela Devi 603.70 Grams 8,01,90//- ° 603.70 Grams 8,0,1900/- Ruta Jindal 1502.60 Grams 25,02,245/- 414.30 Grams 6,35,000/- 987.30 18,67,245/- Total I 6235.00 1,03,66,982/- 3330.10 48,90,053/- 54,76,925/- During the assessment proceedings the assessee was required to explain jewellery found at the time of search. The assessee explained that the assessee and her family owned following jewellery at the time of search. Jewellery available as per records with each members Name of the 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 Di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r-in-law were given to the appellant; then some of the items of jewellery as appearing in the list of jewellery of father-in-law and mother-in-law, should have tallied with the items found in possession ( as per inventory) of the appellant at the time of search. But the counsel has been unable to make any such tally of any item of jewellery!!. Therefore, the balance of the jewellery found i.e. jewellery amounting to Rs. 13,02,245/-( Rs. 25,02,245 (-) Rs. 12,00,000/-) is treated as unexplained jewellery and is required to be added as income of the appellant from undisclosed sources on account of unexplained investment. The addition of Rs. 22,02,245/- is thus restricted to the extent of Rs. 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 Rs. 13,02,245/- representing the value of jewellery found during search and treated as unexplained. 2. That in sustaining the addition of Rs. 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 separat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und 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 mother in law. He sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 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 Rs. 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 13.10.2008 in the case of Vijay Jindal 2.400.00 3,000,000 In explanation common chart placed above was relied upon. - Do - Sunil Jindal Husband of Ruta Jindal Required to explain jewellery for value of Rs. 95,63,372/- 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. Chameli Devi Since this includ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
