9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 84X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he order of the Assistant Commission of Income tax, Central Circle- 08, New Delhi ('the Ld. Assessing Officer') in upholding the addition of Rs. 8,59,018 made under section 69A on account of alleged unexplained investment in jewellery. The appellant craves for leave to add, amend, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal or add any of the aforesaid ground of appeal(s) at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal." 3. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was conducted in the case of Priyagold Group of cases on 16.12.2014 by Investigation Wing, New Delhi. The assessee's case was also covered in search operation u/s 132 of the Act. Consequent upon search action, search assessment proceedings were taken up and statutory notices were issued. Subsequent to the aforesaid search action, information was received from Investigation Wing, Kolkata that a search & seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was conducted upon the assessee on 19.11.2015. In view of the subsequent search on 19.11.2015, assessment proceedings initiated in consequence to search operation conducted on the assessee on 16.12.2014 were abated. The Assessing Officer thereaft ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... person in support of the fact that jewellery found short was available with the assessee and hence why the same should not be treated as sold and accordingly capital gain on the sale of the jewellery be brought to tax. In reply, the assessee stated that she had not sold/parted with any jewellery till the time of search and furnished the details of jewellery. The assessee also offered to file an affidavit. The Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the reply of the assessee. The Assessing Officer once again on 29.11.2017 confronted to the assessee. The assessee reiterated that the complete jewellery is with the family and is used by the family members. The Assessing Officer held that the assessee and her husband could not substantiate the status of short jewellery and hence it was held that they have sold the short gold jewellery of 6267.39 grams in the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer adopted year-1997 as the year of purchase of the jewellery where the assessee declared the jewellery under VDIS and sale price of the jewellery was adopted, the same was taken by the assessee in the Wealth Tax Return for the Asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d & Agro Ltd and interest income from various personal investments. A search and seizure operation u/s 132(1) of the Act was conducted at the business and residential premises of the Priyagold group of companies, its directors & family members on December 16, 2014. During the Search Operations the details of jewellery found in the possession of the applicant/ assessee and her husband are as under :- Sr. No. Particulars Jewellery (value in Rs.) 1. Residential premises : B-14, Sector-14, Noida 18,74,303 (332.4gm) 2. Bank Locker No. DD-22, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Sector-27, Noida 35,96,263 (1115.03gm) The Assessing Officer observed that as per wealth tax return for A.Y. 2013-14, the assessee declared the amount of jewellery amounting to Rs. 1,93,05,539/- and the husband of the assessee has not filed any wealth tax return. The Assessing Officer thereafter issued show cause notice u/s 142(1) to explain the difference between the jewellery found in the possession and the jewellery declared in the wealth tax returns. The assessee in response to the same submitted reply dated 08.12.2017. The Ld. AR submitted that she lives in a joint family and has not parted with or sol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is sold * Details of jewellery of Smt. Bina Agarwal and Manoj Agarwal * Copy of Wealth Tax Return of the family members :- - BINA AGARWAL for AY 2014-15 and AY 2015-16 - B.P.AGARWAL for AY 2014-15 and AY 2015-16 - USHA DEVI AGARWAL for AY 2014-15 and AY 2015-16 - SHEKHAR AGARWAL for AY 2015-16 The Ld. AR further submitted that it is a settled position in law that the additions cannot be made in the absence of any material on record merely on surmises and conjectures. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram Vs. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC). The Ld. AR submitted that without prejudice to the earlier submissions it is prayed that the value of gold jewellery relating to AY 1987- 1988 was Rs. 14.10.624/-. Thus, the value of Rs. 2,14,860/- and the rate of indexation for FY 1997-98 i.e. 305, adopted by the Assessing Officer is arbitrary and cannot be adopted. The CIT(A) observed that the affidavit filed by the assessee is self-serving document and the facts stated therein cannot be accepted as evidence. It is the settled principle of law that the decision must rest not on suspicion but on legal testimony. The L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is the case of the Revenue that the jewellery is found short then there can be a case where there is an undisclosed jewellery. No loose diamonds were found during the search proceedings and all the jewellery was studded in the gold jewellery. Thus, no additions can be made on such count. The additions made are purely on surmises and sans any material on record found during the search that the assessee has made investment in the diamond jewellery. The Ld. AR further submitted that the additions cannot be made merely on the basis of suspicion. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of Umacharan Shaw & Bros. vs. CIT reported in 37 ITR 271 (SC). Ld. AR submitted that the assessee made full disclosure and has submitted the details of the jewellery. The Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) accepted the details submitted by the assessee. Thus, in the absence of any tangible material on record the additions made cannot be sustained. The Ld. AR further relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi ITAT in the case of Shri Raj Kumar Kalrania v. DCIT in ITA 1397/Del/2015 order dated 30.05.2018. The Ld. AR further submitted that the diamonds are precious stones and are part of the jewellery. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
