9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1512X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Appeals) in confirming the assessments made by the Assessing Officer. - Decided against assessee. - ITA No. 48/Mds/2013 and 49/Mds/2013 - - - Dated:- 31-12-2013 - SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JJ. Appellant by: Mr. S. Sridhar, Advocate Respondent by: Mr. Anirudh Rai, CIT O R D E R Per Challa Nagendra Prasad, JM : These two appeals are filed by the assessees for the assessment year 2009-10 and the only common issue in the grounds of appeal of these two appeals is that Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in sustaining the addition of ₹ 2,32,670/- and ` 4,70,018/- being the value of 242.700 gms and 331.700 gms of gold jewellery as unexplained investment in the cases of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reasons to make the said addition would vitiate his action in this regard. There was absolutely no reason given to arrive at the finding of excess jewllery found an seized on the facts and in the circumstances of the case as unexplained investment and in this regard there was no excess jewellery assessable to tax as unexplained investment. Therefore the addition in this regard deserves to be deleted and accordingly the appellant pleads for the acceptance of said ground of appeal in the interest of justice. Alternatively it is pleaded that considering the social status of the Appellant as well as the family size (2 sons and 1 daughter apart from his wife) coupled with the circular/instruction of the Board in Instruction No.1916 (F.No.286/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty of the assessment is dismissed. 6. With regard to the ground on proper opportunity, I find from records that Shri John Morris, CA and Shri Mohd.Ghouse, Accountant for the appellant had appeared and represented the appellant before the Assessing Officer. Therefore this ground is without any basis and is dismissed. 7. On merits, the ground is that the determination of excess jewellery at 242.700 grams was wrong, incorrect, unjustified, erroneous and not sustainable both on facts and in law, without explaining as to how it is so. According to the appellant, there is no excess unaccounted jewellery. The Assessing Officer has clearly stated that excess gold jewellery is unexplained. As has been stated in the assessment order, the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eduction. Hon ble High Court also had found that the decision of the Hon ble ITAT is based on facts as well as the circular and there is no question of law. Excess is arrived at only after accounting for all the jewellery for which explanation has been offered and accepted. In the assessment order, I find that 242.700 gms has been found to be excess jewellery. Considering the fact that no explanation has been offered even during the course of appellate proceedings, in my opinion, the addition made needs to be sustained. 6. On going through the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), we find that the assessee has not offered any explanation either before the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for exc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
