9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 1052X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Out of the above titled three appeals, two are cross appeals i.e. one by the assessee Neela P. Doshi and the other by the revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (appeals) [(hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] dated 07.03. 2012. The third appeal has been preferred by different but related assessee against the order of the CIT(A) of the even date. Since the facts and issues involved therein are identical in nature, hence the same are taken together for disposal with this common order. For the sake of convenience, the facts have been taken from ITA No.3513/M/2012 in the case of Smt. Neela P. Doshi. ITA No.3513/M/2012 2. The assessee in this appeal has challenged the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the AO) as unexplained investments in relation to jewellery found during the course of search action. 3. The facts in brief are that a search action u/s 132 of the I.T. Act was carried out in the case of Acme Group Companies and related persons. The assessee was also covered in the said search action. The assessee is a partner in various firms engaged in business of builde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... king charges along with bank statement/ pass book reflecting payment made along with few ledger account of parties. The assessee also filed the ledger of the jewellery account reflecting the jewellery purchased for the relevant period. The assessee further submitted that considering the financial status of the family of the assessee, the jewellery found during course of search action could not be regarded as unexplained. The assessee further explained that some of the jewellery was received as gift from relatives on social and religious occasions like marriage, birthday anniversary etc. It was also explained that some of the jewellery was remade out of the old jewellery. The assessee further submitted that the total weight of jewellery found matched with the jewellery accounted by the Doshi family. The assessee further submitted that in case of some jewellery, the description did not match either due to absence of full description of the jewellery made by the Departmental Valuer during search action or due to the remaking of the jewellery from the old jewellery items. It was submitted that even in respect of Diamond Jewellery, the overall carat weight of diamonds approximatel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of pieces of diamonds in respect of diamond jewellery were matching in almost all the items; however, there was difference in the estimate of carat weight. He therefore held that the description did not exactly match in respect of diamond jewellery. He, accordingly, confirmed the addition made by the AO in respect of diamond jewellery. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has come in appeal before us. 9. The Ld. A.R. of the assessee has brought our attention to the details and description of the items as reproduced by the Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order. Inviting our attention to the page 12 of the impugned order in relation to item No.29 of locker No.571, the description has been mentioned as Tanmanya Pendant with chain . The number of pieces of diamond in the said pendant has been mentioned as 59. The assessee has stated that it matched with item at serial no. 9 of the valuer s report wherein the description has been mentioned as Double String Black Beads Mangalsutra with Pendant wherein the total number of diamonds is also mentioned as 59. However, the carat weight mentioned by the Departmental Valuer is 0.88, whereas, in the assessee s valuation report, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amily has already declared 222.80 carats of diamond, whereas, the Departmental Valuer had estimated only 203.29 carat of the diamonds which was less than the total diamond weight/carats declared by the assessee. Even the number of diamonds embedded in the each item of the jewellery matched with that of the valuation report. 11. The Ld. A.R. has further invited our attention to the decision of the Jodhpur Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Arjun Dass Kalwani 101 ITD 337 wherein the Tribunal has held that simply because the assessee could not lead evidence for conversion or remaking of the jewellery, possession of which was otherwise accepted, it could not be said that holding of gold jewellery to that extent was unexplained, especially when evidence was available that the assessee had already been assessed at much more jewellery in earlier assessment year. Further, in the case of Mrs. Vinita S. Jhunjhunwala vs. ACIT in ITA No.8837/M/2010 for A.Y. 2008-09 decided on 20.01.2014, the co-ordinate Mumbai bench of the Tribunal has concluded that when quantity of jewellery disclosed by the assessee is same as the quantity of jewellery found during the course of search, no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ra 5 of the order has observed that where the government valuer adopted the weight of the diamond by estimating without separating the diamond from the metal, the reports of valuers could not be held to be accurate and exact and that the possibility in difference of weight could not be ruled out. 12. In the case in hand also, if the difference in weight is ignored the description of the items of the jewellery almost tallied with that of the items already declared by the assessee. Moreover the overall weight of jewellery already declared by the assessee in her books of accounts is more than that of the jewellery found during the course of search action. In view of the above stated facts and in the light of the proposition of law laid down vide judicial pronouncements on this issue as discussed above, it cannot be said in this case that the jewellery found during the search action was unexplained. The additions thus in this case are not warranted and the same are ordered to be deleted. Revenue s Appeal i.e. ITA No.3984/M/2012: 13. The Revenue, in this appeal, has agitated the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting certain additions in relation to the items of jewellery whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
