9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 923X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the outset, we proceed to deal with ground nos. 1 to 4, wherein the assessee has challenged the addition of Rs. 13,15,618/- on merits. 4. Briefly the facts are that the assessee is an individual. For the assessment year under dispute, the assessee filed his return of income on 30.07.2013 declaring total income of Rs. 1,06,64,728/-. A search and seizure operation u/s. 132 of the Act was carried out in case of M/s. Walchandnagar Industires Ltd. on 04.12.2012. The assessee being the erstwhile Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the said concerned was also covered under the search and seizure operation. As stated by the Assessing Officer (A.O. for short), during the search and seizure operation, the following gold/diamond jewellery and silver articles were found in the residential premises and lockers of the assessee : No. Particulars Gross Wt. (gm) Net Wt. (gm) Value (Rs.) 1 Gold Jewellery (including diamond studded gold jewellery) 1206.23 gms 1099.63 gms 31,29,625/- 2 Diamonds 18.18 cts 4,70,500/- 3 Silver Articles 8953.8 gms 8448.30 gms 4,13,106/- 40,13,231/- 5. He, therefore, called upon the assessee t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the A.O. 8. The ld. Authorized Representative (AR for short) submitted that the A.O. as well as ld. CIT(A) have failed to consider the facts and evidences brought on record by the assessee. He submitted, in the course of assessment proceeding, the assessee has explained the source of acquisition of each item of gold/diamond jewellery and silver articles found during search and seizure operation through supporting invoice, bills, etc. In this context, he drew our attention to the copy of the reconciliation statement placed at pages 155 and 156 of the paper book. He submitted, the assessee was previously holding high official position and retired as a Managing Director and CEO. He submitted, from the A.Y. 2009-10 onwards, the assessee has consistently declared income of more than Rs. 1 crores. He had total investment of Rs. 4.74 crores in addition to immovable property. He submitted, the complete bill wise and year wise purchase of jewellery which was reconciled with the punchanama prepared at the time of search and seizure operation and the reconciliation statement was also furnished before the A.O. and ld. CIT(A). He submitted, without properly examining the facts and evidences br ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed, the addition has to be deleted. 9. The ld. Departmental Representative (ld. DR for short) strongly relied upon the observations of the A.O. and the ld. CIT(A). 10. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials on record. From the facts on record, it is very much clear that the A.O. has accepted a part of gold/diamond jewellery and silver articles to be explained, for which payments were either made through cheque or credit card. Whereas, the balance amount of the jewellery and silver articles have been treated as unexplained investments alleging that either they have been purchased in cash or the claim of receipt of gifts have not been proved. It is further observed, the A.O. has categorically stated in the assessment order that to explain the nature and source of acquisition of jewellery and silver articles, the assessee had furnished a statement reconciling the gold/diamond jewellery and silver articles as per Punchnama. Further, in supporting of such statement, the assessee has furnished the purchase bills/invoices and other documentary evidence. The A.O. has not found any defect/discrepancy in such statement, bills and invoices. According to him, onl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n well settled that the aforesaid CBDT Circular would also be applicable in respect of addition made u/s. 69A of the Act. If one goes by the aforesaid CBDT Instruction, then, there will be no unexplained jewellery to be treated as unexplained investment u/s. 69 A of the Act. Thus, looked at from any angle, the addition made by the A.O. on account of unexplained investment u/s.69A of the Act cannot survive. Accordingly, we delete the addition of Rs. 13,15,618/-. The grounds are allowed. 12. In ground no. 5, the assessee has challenged the levy of interest u/s. 234B of the Act. It is the contention of the ld. AR that during the financial year relevant to A.Y. 2013- 14, the assessee has crossed 60 years, hence, he is not only a Senior Citizen but the provision of section 207 would be applicable. He submitted, the assessee also did not have any income chargeable under the head profits and gains from business and profession. Therefore, interest levied u/s. 234B has to be deleted. 13. The ld. DR submitted, the A.O. may be directed to verify assessee's claim. 14. Having considered the rival submissions, we find that, though, this issue was specifically raised before ld. CIT(A) however, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
