9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 893X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... course of search of ₹ 14,66,884/- at the residence of the assessee, of ₹ 1,97,700/- in the bed room of the assessee and ₹ 6,79,031/- found from locker No.1870, the AO had accepted the explanation of the assessee to the extent of ₹ 5,14,636/- being the jewellery purchased by the assessee by way of cheque and the AO also accepted that the jewellery to the extent of 500 grams of gold for ₹ 4,00,000/- as Streedhan and in this manner, he accepted the explanation to the extent of ₹ 9,14,636/- and made addition of ₹ 14,28,979/-. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A) who had confirmed the addition of ₹ 5,52,248/- and deleted the balance addition made by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the balance ornaments represent Streedhan and credit should be given for the same as per Circular No.1916. The A. O. has not accepted the explanation of the ornaments belonging to Virbalaben Shah on the ground that all the items as per valuation report of Virbalaben Shah did not match with the items as per Panchnama and that she did not file any wealth tax return. However, he has given credit in the case of the appellant for ornaments purchased as also for the ornaments upto 500 grams of gold as Streedhan. He has not given credit for the other family members as per circular, as the items as per description were that of lady members. On the other hand the appellant has explained that the valuation report of Virbalaben Shah was found in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5,14,636 Credit as per circular (500 gm.) 4,00,000 9,74,636 Unexplained jewellery (a) 5,52,248 Jewellery found from Bedroom of Prapti Shah and claimed belonging to Lt. Virbalaben Shah unexplained 1,97,700 Jewellery found from Locker in 1870 relating to Virbalaben 6,79,031 8,76,731 Total unexplained jewellery (a) + (b) 14,28,979 On consideration above position the ornaments pertaining ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Virbalaben, as per law but only because no wealth tax return was filed by her, it cannot be said that no jewellery was belonging to her particularly when her Will along with valuation report was found in course of search. Hence, it cannot be an afterthought. In these facts of the present case benefit is to be allowed to the assessee to the extent of jewellery as per valuation report and Will of Virbalaben and when the same is allowed, the addition made by the AO of ₹ 1,97,700/- being jewellery found from bedroom of the assessee and ₹ 6,79,031/- being jewellery found from locker No.1870 cannot be sustained because the same stands explained by such Will and valuation report of Virbalaben, mother-in-law of the assessee. Regarding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it in this contention because as per page 1 of the statement of facts cum synopsis filed by the assessee before us along with her appeal, it is seen that jewellery of ₹ 11.47 lacs is also found as belonging to Praptiben and ₹ 1.82 lacs as belonging to Bhavin and hence, any benefit as per this Board Circular can be allowed only to explain jewellery belonging to these two persons and no such benefit can be allowed for the jewellery belonging to the assessee. Hence, on this aspect also, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of the learned CIT(A). 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee as well as the appeal of the revenue, both are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 21/06/2013. - - TaxTMI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
