9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1156X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n in the price of gold. The standard gold rate was ₹ 12,280/- for 10 gms of 24 carat gold as on 31.03.2008 which, had increased to ₹ 15,105/- for 10 gms of24 carat gold. Thus there is increase in the price of gold during the financial year 2009-10 by about ₹ 2,825/- which comes to 23% on the price prevailing as on 01.04.2008. However, the assessee has shown increase in the total value of jewellery by almost 42% (Rs.3,70,121 ÷ ₹ 89,40,67 x 100) which definitely is on the higher side. Further, the assessee has failed to submit any documents in this regard. The AO also does not seems to have taken up assessment of Wealth Tax of the appellant. In this background, Ld. CIT(A) has rightly held that the addition is restricted to ₹ 1,50,000/- and the balance is deleted and directly the AO to restrict the addition on this issue to ₹ 1,50,000/- only, which which does not need any interference on our part, hence, we uphold the action of the Ld. CIT(A) on the addition in dispute and accordingly, the dismiss the ground no. 2 raised by the Revenue Unaccounted income - Held that:- The confirmations bear PAN of the lenders. The transactions have been routed th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s raised in Assessee s ITA No. 465/Del/2014 (AY 2009- 10) read as under:- 1. The CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of ₹ 18,00,000/- on account of unexplained credit ignoring the fact that the appellant has submitted all the documents related such as PAN card, bank statement etc. to the alleged unexplained credit during the appellate proceedings. Thus, order of the Ld. CIT(A) passed merely on surmises and conjectures should be reversed and addition confirmed by him should be deleted. 2. The CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the adhoc addition of ₹ 1,50,000/- on account of unexplained investment in jewellery, without any basis, arbitrarily and ignoring the fact that the appellant has submitted during the proceedings that there was no fresh investment in jewellery and difference in the value of jewellery due to increase in price only. Thus, order of the Ld. CIT(A) passed merely on surmises and conjectures should be reversed and adhoc addition confirmed by him should be deleted. 3. The appellant craves the lave to add, substitute, modify, delete or amend all or any ground of appeal either before or at the time of hearing. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated the grounds of appeal raised in the Revenue s appeal and requested that appeals of the Revenue may be allowed by cancelling the order of the Ld. CIT(A). To support his case, he filed the copy of the Written Submission, the contents of the written submission are reproduced hereunder:- Sub: Written Submission in the above case- reg. In the above case, it is humbly submitted that the following decisions may kindly be considered: 1. Toby Consultants (P.) Ltd. Vs cn [2010] 324 ITR 338 (Delhi) where Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that where assessee-company had shown in books unsecured loans of ₹ 2.68 crores and ₹ 2.45 crores from its two directors and it was explained that money belonged to its own entity and was routed through directors and Tribunal found that directors who advanced loan were admittedly not at all men of means for advancing such huge amount of loan amounting to about ₹ 5 crores and secondly that assessee even for taking such huge amount of loan did not want to pay any interest for which creditors also agreed, Tribunal had rightly, arrived at a finding of fact, on analysis of all relevant material on record, that genuineness of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent case and the issue involved in the present Appeal, we are of the view that no useful purpose would be served to issue notice again and again to the assessee, therefore, we are deciding the present appeals exparte qua assessee, after hearing the Ld. DR and perusing the records. 12. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the records and the case laws relied upon by Ld. DR. After going through the case laws cited by the Ld. DR, we are of the view that the same are on the distinguished facts and circumstances of the case and hence, are not applicable in the present case. However, we find that Ld. First Appellate Authority has elaborately discussed the issues in dispute by considering the submissions of the Ld. Counsel of the assessee and adjudicated the issues in dispute from page no. 7 to 10 of the impugned order. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under:- 4.10.1 The AO has picked up 10 credit entries from the bank account and mentions in the order that no details about these entries have been filed to explain these transactions. He recalls that vide questionnaire dated 18.07.2011 the assessee was required to explain the credit transactions appearing in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rson been produced to justify the transactions and to explain the genuineness of the transactions and source of funds. Creditworthiness of these entities/ person has also not been proved by furnishing documents in respect of financial status of these person/ entities. Therefore, source of funds credited in the bank account of the assessee is held as unexplained and unsubstantiated being unexplained cash credits in the bank account of the assessee. 4.10.2 The AR has submitted that most of the entries listed by the AO in his order are in respect of transactions with her husband which have been duly reflected in the books of accounts as well as in his bank accounts. A chart has been given by the AR at Page 25 of the paper book giving the name of the person with whom transaction has been entered into. From the same it is seen that 7 out of 10 transactions are in respect of funds transferred from bank account of her husband Mr. Sawar Mal Goyal, 2 entries relate to amounts received from Mr. Rajesh Gautam and one entry relates to transaction with Ms. Sonia Bassi. The husband of the appellant (Mr. Sawar Mal Goyal) is also assessed to tax by the same AO. The Canara Bank account copy of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... during the year. He therefore submitted that there is no case of holding that any undisclosed investment has been made in the jewellery. 4.12.2 I have considered the submissions of the AR. Nothing of substance have been submitted during the appeal proceedings to show that the difference in the value of amount of jewellery shown in the Wealth Tax Return of A.Y. 2008-09 and 2009-10 was on account of difference in the valuation of the jewellery. No valuation report has been submitted nor any list has been. submitted showing item wise increase in the value ofjewellery. In view of this I do not find any demerits in the action of the AO. The addition therefore is deserves to be retained. It is however, noted that even in the absence of documentary evidences it cannot be completely denied that-there could be increase in the value of the jewellery held by the appellant due to appreciation in the price of gold. The standard gold rate was ₹ 12,280/- for 10 gms of 24 carat gold as on 31.03.2008 which, had increased to ₹ 15,105/- for 10 gms of24 carat gold. Thus there is increase in the price of gold during the financial year 2009-10 by about ₹ 2,825/- which comes t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence, we uphold the action of the Ld. CIT(A) on the addition in dispute and dismiss the ground no. 1 raised by the Revenue. 13.1 With regard to addition on account of unexplained investment in jewellery is concerned, we find that the AO has made an addition of ₹ 3,70,121/- as unexplained investment in jewellery. It was observed that there is a rise in the value of jewellery by ₹ 3.70 lacs in the return of wealth filed for the present assessment year as compared to the return filed for A.Y. 2008-09. The AO has noted that the assessee has not submitted any details showing the source of funds used in acquiring the extra jewellery. Therefore, he has brought to tax ₹ 3,17,121/- as unexplained income in the hands of the assessee representing unexplained investment in jewellery. We note that before the Ld. CIT(A) the AR has submitted that the difference in the total jewellery declared in the Wealth Tax Return of A.Y. 2008-09 2009-10 was due to increase in the value of jewellery and as such there was no purchase of jewellery during the year. He therefore submitted that there is no case of holding that any undisclosed investment has been made in the jewellery. We furt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 142(1) 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and furnished information called for from time to time alongwith necessary documents. After examining the all the documents the AO completed the assessment u/s. 143(3)/153A making the following additions/ disallowances. i) Addition of ₹ 1,28,89,000/- on account of unexplained cash credits u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. ii) Addition of ₹ 1,80,000/- on account of house hold expenses. iii) Addition of ₹ 43,34,185/- on account of unexplained investment in jewellery. 15. Against the aforesaid assessment order dated 27.12.2011, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned Order dated 01.11.2013 has partly allowed the appeal of the asseseee. 16. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue as well as Assessee are in appeals before the Tribunal. 17. Ld. DR relied upon the order of the AO and reiterated the grounds of appeal raised in the Revenue s appeal and requested that appeals of the Revenue may be allowed by cancelling the order of the Ld. CIT(A). To support his case, he reiterated the Written Submission as mentioned above. 18. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve submitted are details to the AO. He further submitted that the all the details have been submitted during the appeal proceedings along with the additional evidences. The AO has not given any report on the same. He therefore submitted that it would be a miscarriage of justice if addition is made inspite of providing complete details of the lenders and their confirmations. 4.10.4 There is no way to rebut the claim of the AR that the AO has not raised any further query after receiving the confirmations etc. from the appellant's AR. There is no record to show that he requested the appellant to make any further submissions. The assessment order does not give true picture of the proceedings as it is incorrect to say that no details of the credit transactions were filed when the assessment folder itself contains confirmations, bank statements, ITR copies of the lenders. During the appeal proceedings the confirmations, bank statements, ITR copies submitted by the AR have been forwarded to the AO with a request to verify the same and submit his reort after necessary inquiries. The required report has not been submitted. 4.10.5 I find that the confirmations bear PAN of the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
