9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (10) TMI 1056X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of ₹ 401254/- being the difference in valuation of gold ornaments on gross weight and net weight basis. 2) The learned Commissioner (Appeals) I erred in sustaining the valuation on net weight basis adopted by the Assessing Officer even though it was an unscientific and unreliable basis of valuation and thereby upholding addition of ₹ 401254/- as unexplained investment in gold ornaments. 3) The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in sustaining addition of ₹ 30521/- on account of unexplained cash. 4) The additions as made above be deleted and the income of the assessee be reduced to that extent. 5) Such other orders be passed as deemed fit and proper. 6) The appellant prays for leave to add ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings (which were not produced during the course of search before the ADIT), the excess jeweler of 601.58 grams (as worked out above on net weight basis) valued at ₹ 4,01,254/- has been found, for which no satisfactory explanation has been furnished by the assessee. Accordingly, the said amount of ₹ 4,01,254/- has been treated as unexplained investment in jeweler and taxed u/s. 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961 as additional income of the assessee. Since, the assessee has concealed these particulars of her income by furnishing inaccurate particulars thereof, I am satisfied that she has committed default within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) r.w. explanation-1 of the I.T. Act, 1961 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no reason to interfere with the same. Accordingly this part of the addition is confirmed. Regarding the balance of the discrepancy of Gold jewellery (2130.08 gms 601.58 gms), the assessee could not explain the sources thereof. The relevant discussion is given in para 5 of the impugned order reads as follows:- I view of the said facts the explanation now given by the assessee is not at all satisfactory and therefore cannot be accepted. Accordingly, the said investment of ₹ 14,20,763/- in Gold ornament is treated as unexplained investment and proposed to be added to the total income declared by the assessee being head of the family u/s. 69 A of the I.T. Act, 1961. However, since an addition of ₹ 4,01,254/- has alr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for issue of direction to the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer is directed to verify the claim of the appellant that in respect of jewellery which is treated as unexplained by the learned Assessing Officer, the claim of the appellant regarding explainability of said jewellery is verifiable with reference to original bills/vouchers and the payment for which has been made through account payee cheques duly debited in capital account of the appellant. If this claim of the appellant is found to be correct, addition of ₹ 10,19,509/- shall stand deleted. 7. During the proceedings before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee mentioned that this issue is effectively a case of remand ordered to the files of the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cash. Both the parties have left this issue to the best judgement of the Tribunal after considering the facts available on record. Relevant facts are that the search party found the cash difference of ₹ 30,521/- at the residence of the assessee. Assessee could not reconcile the difference and also could not substantiate with specific explanation relying on the daily cash book maintained by him. During the first the assessee furnished the submissions which are reproduced in para 3.1 of the impugned order which reads as follows:- It is submitted that during the assessment proceedings the assessee produced a rough cash book maintained by her on tally package in the computer which shows cash balance of ₹ 83562/- till 6th Octo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
