9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 170X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IT(A) to be adjudicated afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Addition on account unaccounted cash - Held that:- In the present case, it appears that the explanation of the assessee was that the cash found during the course of search was out of the withdrawals made by him and his wife. In our opinion, the authorities below had not appreciated the facts in right perspective. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to set aside this issue back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to be adjudicated afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee: 2.1 Because the accounts which were produced for the assessment and based on which the assessment was framed but not relied for withdrawals of the cash. 3. The appellant craves leave for addition, modification, alteration, amendment of any of the grounds of appeal." 4. Vide Ground Nos. 1 to 1.3, the grievance of the assessee relates to the enhancement of the income by ₹ 9,26,702/- on account of jewellery weighing 461.046 grams. 5. Facts of the case in brief are that a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was carried out on 21.01.2011 in M/s Dharampal Satyapal Group of cases to which the assessee belongs. The assessee filed the return of income on 28.09 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se and the remaining jewellery was received by the assessee/her sons at the time of marriage, births, on festivals and other family functions. The AO, however, did not find merit in the submissions of the assessee and made the addition of ₹ 41,04,306/- by observing as under: "6. In the submissions of the assessee, the only submission which could assist in the quantification of explained investment in jewellery is the jewellery purchase details submitted alongwith the explanation. Various bills of purchases made from time to time have been enclosed. However, in the present case, I am concerned with the source of the investment made by the assessee. Investment must flow from the disclosed sources of income of the assessee. The purchas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wealth tax purpose. However, the appellant did not file wealth tax return. The valuation report proves that the jewellery were owned by the appellant since 1988. Therefore, source of such jewellery if at all can be asked only in A.Y. 89-90 and no addition can be made in the impugned assessment year 2011-12. He has relied on the decision of Patoa Bros Vs. CIT 133 1TR 672 (Gau) where it has been held that crucial date for the application of sec 69A is when the assessee became the owner of the asset. He also relied on the decision of Harlal Maaulal Vs. CIT 147 ITR 11 (MP). (iv) Ld. Assessing Officer did not accept the purchase as per the purchase bills except in respect of three purchase bill without verifying the facts from the jewelers by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 11. Next issue vide Ground No. 2, relates to the sustenance of addition of ₹ 1,40,000/- on account unaccounted cash. 12. The facts related to this issue in brief are that during the course of search at the locker of the assessee, cash amounting to ₹ 1,40,000/- was found and seized. The AO added the said amount by observing that the availability of cash with the family of the assessee on the date of search had already been considered in full. He, therefore, considered the amount of ₹ 1,40,000/- as unexplained and made the addition. 13. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) and submitted that cash found from the locker of the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of the assessee, however, he had considered a sum of ₹ 2,75,490/- as explained and balance amount of ₹ 7,00,000/- was added to the income of the assessee. 18. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) who sustained the addition by observing that the finding of the AO that ₹ 7,00,000/- out of ₹ 9,75,490/- was unexplained appears to be correct. 19. Now the assessee is in appeal. The ld. DR supported the orders of the authorities below and reiterated the observations made by the AO and the ld. CIT(A) in their respective orders. 20. We have considered the submissions of ld. DR and perused the material available on the record. In the present case, it appears that the explanation of the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
