9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 243X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he parties were not examined as to exact nature of gold items presented by them. The value of the excess of gold for which the security of cash was accepted was ₹ 22,10,000/-, which is actually 50% of the gold found and seized. If the permitted or accepted quantity of gold by the A.O is taken at 500 grams excess of gold found with the assessee at 487 grams is well within the norms prescribed by the CBDT. Therefore, we are of the opinion that it cannot be treated as unexplained investment. As regards cash found at the time of search, the assessee has filed the copies of the cash book of both the assessee and his father to demonstrate that both he and his father had sufficient cash balance on the date of search. However, this was not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estment. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that in the light of the explanations offered by the assessee, affidavits filed by the close relatives of the assessee s family members, the status of the assessee and his family members and guidelines laid down in CBDT Circular No. 1916 dated 11-05-1994, the quantity of jewellary found at the time of search was within reasonable limits of jewellary that could have been held by the assessee and his family members and consequently, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have deleted the addition. 6. For the above grounds and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, the appellant prays that the appeal be allowed. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend or modify the above grou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee. Further, un-accounted cash of ₹ 2,26,600/- was also found during the course of search and as the assessee could not explain the source for the same, the A.O treated it as unexplained income of the assessee, and accordingly brought the entire sum of ₹ 44,50,300/- to tax as unexplained investment. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) who confirmed the order of the A.O and the assessee is in second appeal before us. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, submitted that the assessee and his wife stay along with his father and mother, at the premises which was searched u/s 132(1) of the IT Act and that the gold jewellary and diamonds found at the time of search belong to all the four family members. He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave gifted gold jewellary at the time of marriage and other functions. With regard to the cash found at the time of search, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has filed before us, the cash book of assessee as well as his father to demonstrate that they had the cash balance as on that date which was more than the amount found and seized i.e to ₹ 2,26,000/-. Thus, he prayed that the addition be deleted. 4. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, supported the orders of the authorities below. 5. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, we find that according to the A.O himself the excess of gold found during the course of search which is over and above the accepted norms or quantity was only 487.78 grams. What is the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
