9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n account of making charges of the jewellary without bringing any cogent material on record. The ld. CIT(A) presumed that all the jewellary was remade and sustained the addition to the extent of 10% of the value of jewellary without any basis which in our opinion is not sustainable. Even otherwise, addition made on the basis of suspicion alone is not sustainable. Suspicion however strong it may be, cannot take place of evidence - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No. 5296/Del/2013, ITA No.5369/Del/2013 - - - Dated:- 12-2-2016 - Shri N. K. Saini, AM And Smt. Beena A. Pillai, JM For the Petitioner : Shri R.S. Singhvi, CA For the Respondent : Shri Ramesh Chand, CIT, DR ORDER Per Beena A. Pillai, JM These cross appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as per law and without obtaining requisite approval as per law and without complying with the other mandatory condition envisaged under the Act, more so when no incriminating material have been found as a result of search. 5. That in any case and in any view of the matter, impugned addition and impugned assessment order are bad in law, illegal, unjustified, barred by limitation, contrary to facts law and based upon recording of incorrect facts and finding, without giving adequate opportunity of hearing, in violation of principles of natural justice and the same deserves to be quashed. 6. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of Ld. AO in framing the impugned assessment or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal. 2. The facts in brief are that a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was carried out in DS Group Cases. The assessee had filed her return of income on 14.9.2011 for the year under consideration declaring total taxable income of ₹ 66,69,100/-. During the assessment proceedings, the ld. AO made the following additions:- (i) Salary income ₹ 6,13,725/- (ii) Unexplained investment in jewellery u/s 69A -3,32,04,460/-. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. AO, the assessee went in appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) recorded that as the jewellary seized was l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... return which is also placed at page 48-64, 65-71, 72-79, 80 and 81-86. On perusal of these wealth-tax returns, an amount of ₹ 7,73,97,015/- has been shown as the total value of jewellery possessed by the assessee, her husband and their daughter-in-law. 6.3. The ld. AR submitted that the total jewellery disclosed in the wealth-tax return by the three individuals are much more than the jewellery seized by the AO. The ld. AR submitted that there was no justification for holding any jewellery as unexplained. 7. On the contrary, the ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 8. We have perused the submissions and the wealth-tax returns filed by the assessee in the paper book placed before us. The addition in dispute ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uspicion however strong it may be, cannot take place of evidence This ground of appeal, therefore, stands allowed. 9. Ground Nos.4 to 7 are on the validity of the jurisdiction of the search action which has been conducted by the ld. AO without proper requisite approval. As these grounds have not been argued before us, we are not inclined to adjudicate the same. 10. The appeal, therefore, stands partly allowed. 11. Now, we take up the appeal filed by the Revenue; ITA No. 5369/D/13 The issue raised by the Revenue is in relation to the deletion of the addition made by the ld.AO, to an extent of 90% on account of unexplained investments in jewellery. 8.3. We have dealt with this issue at length in the assessee s appeal. We are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
