9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 1525X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sh seized at the time of search - HELD THAT - assessee was having more cash as per day-to-day cash books maintained by him, as compared to cash found during course of search. The CIT(A) had also recorded categorical finding to the effect that cash disclosed in the cash book maintained by assessee and his family members were higher than cash found during course of search. Nothing was brought on record by Department to controvert the findings recorded by CIT(A). Accordingly, we do not find any reason to interfere in the findings of CIT(A). CIT(A) deleted the addition. Decision in favor of assessee. The appeal filed by the Department in I.T.A.No. 455/Ind/2013 is less than monetary limit fixed by C.B.D.T. Circular No. 3/2011 dated 9.2.2011 for filing appeal by the Department. Since the tax effect was less than ₹ 3 lakhs even as per C.B.D.T. Circular dated 9.2.2011, the Department should not have filed the appeal before the Tribunal. In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed, whereas the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed. - SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, J.M. AND SHRI R.C. SHARMA, A.M. For the Appellant : Shri R.A.Verma, Sr. DR For the Respondent : Shri S.N.Agrawal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jewellery as seized during the course of search as income of the assessee and his brother even when the quantity of the gold jewellery as disclosed by the assessee was higher than what was actually found during the course of search. 5. By the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition made on account of gold jewellery found in short, however, he has confirmed the addition in respect of diamond jewellery found in excess, after having the following observations :- 4.3 I have considered the Assessing Officer s order as well as the appellant s submission. Having considered the both, I find that the appellant has agitated against the addition of ₹ 8,63,685/- made on account of alleged unexplained investment in jewellery. The Assessing Officer simply on the basis of seizure as made during the course of search of ₹ 28,37,136/-, added an amount of ₹ 19,73,451/- to the income of Shri Subhash Agrawal and balance amount of ₹ 8,63,685/- to the income of the appellant. The Assessing Officer has not assigned any reason for such disallowance except that he has added the difference merely based on seizure affected by the investigation during the search operation o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of appellant s declaration has been taken on the basis of appellant s submission. The addition is confirmed in the ratio of addition made by the Assessing Officer of 8.63 (+) 19.73 = 28.36 in the proportion. If the Assessing Officer finds any difference in the valuation than to the valuation made by the Department of the diamond jewellery he may modify the same accordingly in the proportion as done by him in the assessment order. Thus, the appellant s this ground of appeal is partly allowed. 6. Addition made in the hands of Subhash Agrawal in respect of cash seized during course of search was deleted by the ld.CIT(A) after having the following observations :- 5.3 I have considered the Assessing Officer s order as well as the appellant s submission. Having considered both, I find that the appellant has challenged the addition of ₹ 2,58,041/- made on account of alleged investment in excess cash as found and seized at the time of search. The Assessing Officer on the basis of seizure made at the time of search reached to the conclusion that cash as seized during the course of search was not properly explained and added the same to the income of the appellant. The appellant duri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he description of the jewellery found during course of search. So far as total amount of jewellery as disclosed by the assessee is concerned, the same was much more than what was found during the course of search. Changes in form of jewellery was made by disposing some part of jewellery and replacing the same by diamond jewellery. Even amount-wise diamond jewellery found in excess was of ₹ 10,31,730/- as against value of gold jewellery found short which was ₹ 14,00,923/-. Thus, taking the value of both gold jewellery and diamond jewellery together, the amount of gold jewellery and diamond found during course of search was less than the amount disclosed by the assessee and their family members in their wealth tax returns and VDIS declaration, therefore, there is no justification for making any addition in respect of part of gold jewellery converted into diamond jewellery, when the value was not found to be more than what was declared by the assessee in their respective returns. Change in the form of jewellery from gold jewellery to Diamond jewellery do not support the contention of Assessing Officer to treat the same as undisclosed when the total amount of jewellery so d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
