9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1207X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al, A.R. ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, J.M.: This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-29, New Delhi in relation to assessment year 2014-15 on the following grounds:- i) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 65,42,564/- made by the AO on account of unexplained investment u/s. 69A of the I.T. Act. ii) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the Department by Shri Sridhar Dora, Sr. DR. Assessee by Shri V.K. Agarwal, A.R. addition of ₹ 65,42,564/- made by the AO on the basis of old valuation report which had no eviden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h jewellery found during search and after considering the submissions of the assessee, an addition of ₹ 65,42,564/- was made by the AO as unexplained investment under section 69A of the Act in the hands of the assessee and assessed the income of the assessee at ₹ 76,06,624/- vide order dated 26.2.2016 passed u/s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Against the assessment order, assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order 21.12.2016 has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee and deleted the addition amounting to ₹ 65,42,564/-. Aggrieved with the impugned order the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. Ld. DR relied upon the order of the AO. He submitted that the addition was deleted by the Ld ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 65,42,564/- on account of alleged unexplained investment under section 69A of the Act in jewellery found during the course of search at the residential premises of the appellant. The contention of the appellant, as reproduced earlier has been considered vis - vis the aversions in the assessment order and details submitted. 9. The addition has been made by the AO mainly due to the reason that the jewellery found during the search was not supported by any bills or document, except for some fresh purchases. The valuation report prepared by the approved valuer Sh. Sanjay Prakash was not found during search and the valuer could not produce the records or date etc. of preparation of such valuation report, no payments were charged fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... members of appellant as also supported by the valuation report. However, all the jewellery found from the premises has been added in the hands of appellant only, where the benefit of CBDT instruction has been given in the hands of other family members too. The AO has not provided any reasoning for making such additions in the hands of appellant only, when the appellant and his family members have duly owned up the jewellery in their hands and a valuation report has been provided to corroborate the same. Therefore, jewellery belonging to four family members cannot be added in the hands of appellant alone. 9.3 The appellant has mentioned that no Wealth Tax returns have been submitted. This alone cannot be the basis to make addition in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on report and confirmed the veracity of the same. Further, an affidavit has also been provided to support his contention. It is not statutorily required to keep the periodic records of such valuation report, therefore the affidavit submitted by the appellant cannot be negated. Further, if approved valuer has not charged any amount for preparation of such report, it cannot be said that the valuation report was not prepared at that point of time. Here it is also to be mention that though during search no such valuation report .vas found but it was categorically stated by the appellant in his statement that it s the ancestral jewellery and after few days the said valuation report has been produced before the ADI, Investigation. 9.7 There ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
