9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 1378X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... noted that during the search and seizure action u/s 132(1) in respect of locker no.756 held by the assessee with SSVL, gold jewellery net wt. 1739.400 grams, worth ₹ 13,91,520/-, as per Govt. Approved valuer s report dated 2.1.2007 was found. Out of these, jewellery of net weight of 1221.40 grams worth ₹ 9,77,120/- has been seized as per Annexure J-1 to the panchnama dated 2.1.2007. The statement of the assessee was recorded u/s 132(4) of the I T Act, 1961 on 2.1.2007. The assessee was asked to explain the source of investment in the said jewellery, vide Question no.3 thereof. In reply to the said question, the assessee had stated that I am not filling my wealth tax return nor I am having valuation report and acquisition bills etc. Hence this jewellery is undisclosed jewellery. Now I am offering a sum of ₹ 9,77,120/- for FY 2006-07 as undisclosed income for taxation. I will submit demand draft by 5.1.2007. 2.2 During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to explain the source of jewellery found of ₹ 13,91,520/- with supporting documentary evidence. In compliance to the said notice, the assessee vide letter dated 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... draft from the assessee. It was further submitted that the Assessing Officer had recorded that the assessee could not file any supporting evidence whereas the assessee vide her letter dated 22.12.2008 has given full details of the jewellery found and the details of the persons to whom does it belongs to and the source of acquisition of each individual duly supported by the affidavits. The copy of the I T return and balance sheet of her mother Smt Leela Thakur wherein the jewellery belonging to her is reflected was filed. The assessee had also submitted the evidence regarding joint holding of the locker with Smt Laxmi Sharma. A copy of her ration card was filed to show that her sister Kusum Singh s name was included in the same. It was argued that two of the ladies were married long back and had received jewellery at the time of their marriage and the value at that time was negligible and there cannot be any evidence for such type of acquisition and considering the small amount of jewellery the wealth tax return were also not required to be filed. The CBDT instruction no. 1916 dated 11.5.1994 was also brought to the notice of the CIT(A) wherein certain guidelines were issued not to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... butted by the Assessing Officer in any manner; therefore, the Assessing Officer is not justified in concluding that theatre jewellery belonged to the assessee, which has been treated by him as her own unexplained investment. 4.2 He however, noted that there is some contradiction in the stand of the assessee taken before the DDIT and before the Assessing Officer. While before the DDIT, it was time and again stated that the jewellery belonged to three ladies only as named above which included herself; however, in reply to the Assessing Officer, it was stated that apart from the jewellery belonged to three ladies, jewellery to the extent of 185.500 grm worth ₹ 1.84 lakhs and 110.100 grm worth ₹ 88,080/- respectively belonged to her aunt and minor children. Also, at certain points, it was stated that the jewellery belonged to three ladies in equal quantities while before the Assessing Officer, different quantities belonging to such ladies were mentioned. 4.3 Considering the above facts, he came to the conclusion that the said jewellery could be considered to be belonging to the three ladies only as per the stated stand of the assessee and no benefit to the extent of 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and confirming the ld Assessing Officer s action in respect of balance jewellery of 183.300 gms and 34,800 gm. 2) In the facts and circumstances of the case the ld CIT(A) erred in denying the benefit of 185.500 gm. Of jewellery belonging to Smt Laxme Sharma Aunt of the assessee and joint holder o the locker. 3) In the facts and circumstances of the case the ld CIT(A) erred in disallowing the jewellery of 185.100 gm belonging to the minor children of the appellant. 6 The ld counsel for the assessee, referring to the letter dated 8.1.2006 addressed to DDIT (Invt), which is placed at page 38 of the paper book, submitted that the jewellery in the said locker was belonging to the assessee, her mother and her elder sister. Referring to pages 6 to 8 of the paper book, he submitted that an explanation regarding the ownership of the jewellery were filed before the Assessing Officer giving the quantity wise jewellery belonging to the assessee, her mother, her sister, her aunt and two children. Referring to page 9 to 15 of the paper book, he drew the attention of the Bench to the affidavits filed by various persons giving the details of the jewellery belonging to each of them. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in giving part relief. She accordingly submitted that the order of the CIT(A) should be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. As regards the argument of the ld counsel for the assessee regarding the jewellery belonging to her and two children, she submitted that the same is merely an afterthought. 6.5 The ld counsel for the assessee, in his rejoinder submitted that the assessee can always clarify and retract the statement given during the course of search. 7 We have considered the rival submissions made by both the parties, perused the orders of the authorities below and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. There is no dispute to the fact that a search and seizure operation u/s 132(1) of the I T Act was initiated on the assessee s bank locker no.756 with Secure Safe Vaults Pvt Ltd on 6.11.2006. There is also no dispute to the fact that during the said search, jewellery net weight 1739.400 gm worth ₹ 13,91,520/- as per Govt Approved valuer report dated 2.1.2007 was found. Out of this, jewellery net weight of 1221.400 gm worth ₹ 9,77,120/- has been seized as per Annexure J- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... letter addressed to DDIT dated 5.1.2007 and 8.1.207 (wrongly mentioned as 5.1.2006 and 8.1.2006. 7.3 Further, the assessee in her letter addressed to DDIT dated 8.1.2007 has given a list of ornaments belonging to her sister and her mother. Although, the locker stands in the name of the assessee as well as Mrs Laxmi Sharma, the assessee has never sated before the DDIT that the locker contains ornaments belonging to Mrs Laxmi Sharma or that of her two children. Only during the course of assessment proceedings, that too after about two years, the assessee submitted before the Assessing Officer regarding the theory of jewellery belonging to Mrs Laxmi Sharma and the two children of the assessee. Therefore, we find the force in the submissions of the ld DR that the jewellery belonging to Smt Laxmi Sharma and the two children of the assessee are merely an afterthought. Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) rejecting the claim of the assessee that a part of the jewellery belong to Mrs Laxmi Sharma and the two children is upheld 7.4 So far as the order of the CIT(A) allowing credit of jewellery wt 1255.700 gms is concerned, we find the assessee had given details of jewellery belonging ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
