9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 901X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s persons. The AO erred in making the addition of the aforesaid amount without proper reasoning, and in the absence of any evidence to show that the jewellery found was unaccounted or unexplained or undisclosed. AO had no basis to make the additions, when the cash found was explained by cash balance as per books of account and when the jewellery found was fully explained by jewellery disclosed in Wealth Tax Records of various persons. There is no material to warrant any interference by us with the impugned Order of the Ld. CIT(A). The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is sound in law. - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No:- 1178/Del/2015 - - - Dated:- 14-2-2019 - SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Revenue : Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT (DR) For The Assessee : Sh. Shailesh Gupta, Adv. ORDER PER: ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, AM This appeal by Revenue is filed against the order dated 18.12.2014 of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [ CIT(A) for short] for Assessment year ( AY' for short) 2012-13. Search and seizure operations under Section ( U/s for short) 132 of Income Tax Act, 1961 ( IT Act for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made on a/c of unexplained cash found/seized during the search and taxed accordingly. (Addition: ₹ 9,75,000/-) 4.2 In the facts circumstances of case as discussed above I am satisfied that the assessee has concealed furnished the inaccurate particulars of income to the tune of ₹ 9,75,000/- within meaning of section 271(l)(c). Therefore, assessee is liable for the levy of penalty u/s 271(l)(c). The proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) are initiated separately. 5. Jewellery of ₹ 1,09,72,957/- found and out of which ₹ 43,72,167/- was seized during the course of search (last date of operation of locker 6.6.2011). Vide order sheet entry dated 14.02.2014 the assessee was asked categorically to explain source of investment of jewellery. In response to this query the assessee made following submissions vide reply dated 20.02.2014: With reference to query to explain the jewellery found during the course of search we would like to draw your kind attention to the working sheet in respect of jewellery found during the course of search and working sheet in respect of jewellery as per wealth tax return of immediate previous assessment year before the date of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y evidence. The books maintained by the appellant have also not been questioned or rejected. There is no evidence to conclude that the cash found represented undisclosed income of the appellant or other members of his family. The addition made cannot be legally sustained and is deleted. 5.2 The second addition made by the AO was entire jewelry of the value of ₹ 1,09,72,957/- found in the residence of the appellant, including on the person of the family members, out of which 2 items of the value of ₹ 43,72,167/- were Seized. As per the Wealth Tax Records of these members, the value of jewelry disclosed amounted to ₹ 1,46,48.448/- as on 31.03.2011. From the documents filed, I find that even the two seized items described as diamond necklace weighing 116.900 gms and 71 ginnies weighing 565.900 gms are also duly disclosed in the Wealth Tax Records of Sh. Sanjay Aggrawal Sons (HUF) as per the valuation report dated 23.03.2011. Therefore, there is no basis to reach the conclusion that jewelry found in the residence of the appellant was undisclosed. The addition made is erroneous and is deleted. 3. Now, Revenue has filed the appeal in Income Tax Appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mallika Vs CIT(supra) and CIT Vs R Mallika(supra), the Assessee had not discharged burden as regards source from which investment had been made. However, in the case before us the Assessee had furnished explanation to the AO and had discharged the burden as regards the source of cash / jewellery found from the Assessee s premises. In the case of Ashokbhai H Jariwala Vs ACIT(supra), there was nothing on record to show that sister of Assessee was in exclusive possession of bedroom in Assessee s house from where cash was seized and further, there was contradiction in statement of Assessee and his sister with respect to ownership of actual amount in cash. There are no such facts in the case before us. In the case of Sukh Ram Vs ACIT(supra), huge sum of cash was found for which Assessee explained that said cash belonged to certain organization but did not bring any material on record to substantiate his explanation and, moreover, verification of books of account of said organization showed no connection with cash recovered from Assessee. However, in the case before us the cash and jewellery found from the Assessee s premises are fully explained by the cash balances as per books of accou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
