9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 740X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dismissed. Unexplained cash found at the time of search - AO had made the addition of cash found from the locker as being unexplained - HELD THAT:- We do not find any justifiable reason by CIT(A) for disregarding the submission of assessee of the amount being out of Stridhan more so when the assessee has been maintaining cash book and has stated to withdrawn more ₹ 20,00,000/- from the bank account and substantial addition has been deleted by accepting the explanation of the assessee - we find merit in the submission of the Learned AR. CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the addition of ₹ 60,000/-. We therefore direct its deletion. As far as the relief of ₹ 5,33,000/- which has been granted by CIT(A) and against which Revenue is before us, Revenue has not pointed to any fallacy in the findings of CIT(A). Unexplained jewellery - assessee had acquired jewellery weighing approximately 7090 gms between 08.05.2003 (date of previous search) and 16.01.2013 (date of the present search) - CIT-A deleted addition - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) while deleting the addition has given a finding that assessee had given the breakup of purchase of jewellery made during AY 2004-05 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed partial relief to the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), Revenue and assessee are now in appeal before us. Before us, Revenue has raised following grounds in ITA No.2694/Del/2017 for A.Y. 2013-14: 1. The order of Ld. CIT(A) is not correct in law and on facts. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred deleting the addition of ₹ 1,59,98,173/- on account of unexplained Jewellery. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in accepting the submissions of the assessee without giving the department an opportunity to examine it. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in noting that the all the submissions were available with the A.O when the assessment folder do not show any such submission on record. 5. On the facts and circumstances, the CIT(A) has erred m deleting the addition of ₹ 5,33,000/-on account of unexplained cash. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred m holding that me concept of maintenance of log-book for operation of lockers unheard-off. 7. The appellant craves leave to add, amend any/all the ground of appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act is invalid and therefore be held to be bad in law. 9. Learned DR on the other hand pointed to the findings of CIT(A) on the relevant issue at Para 4.2.2 of the order and submitted that Ld CIT(A) after calling and examination of the assessment records has noted that no directions were issued by Addl.CIT to complete the assessment in any of manner. In such a situation he submitted that there is no merit in the ground of the Assessee. He thus supported the order of CIT(A). 10. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials on record. In the present grounds the assessee is challenging the assessment framed by the AO u/s 143(3) on the ground that AO had obtained prior approval of JCIT u/s 153D of the Act which is contrary to the provisions of the Act. We find that CIT(A) while deciding the ground has noted the fact that he had called for the assessment records and after its examination, he has noted that AO had sought consolidated approval of Addl.CIT for A.Y. 2007- 08 to 2012-13 pertaining to proceedings u/s 153A of the Act. He has thereafter noted that the draft order for AY 2013-14 was also clubbed with the consolidated proposal which appeared to be a bon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the extent of ₹ 5,33,000/- and upheld the addition of ₹ 60,000/-. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee and Revenue are now before us. 14. Before us, Learned AR submitted that on the date of search aggregated cash of ₹ 12,50,062.81 was found. He submitted that assessee has been maintaining a cash book and as per the cash book, the cash was ₹ 11,90,062/-. With respect to cash of ₹ 60,000/- found and which has been upheld by CIT(A) to be unexplained, it represented her pin money. He submitted that it is customary for the ladies to have some pin money which are savings out of the amounts received over the years. He therefore submitted that the addition made by the CIT(A) needs to be deleted. On the other hand, Learned DR pointing to the order of AO submitted that AO did not accept the contention of the assessee on the ground that assessee could not link cash found from locker was exactly out of the cash withdrawals from the bank account. With respect to the claim of the Ld AR that the amount represents pin money, he submitted that the contention is unsubstantiated and therefore the order of AO needs to be upheld. He thus supported the order of A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch are noted by the AO under Para 2 of the order. The net weight of jewellery found was 9373.300 gms and as per the Valuation Officer as on 01.06.2013 the value of such jewellery was ₹ 3,94,80,175/-. Assessee had claimed total jewellery to be explained and had also submitted the mode of its acquisition. The submissions of the assessee was not found acceptable to AO for the reasons inter alia that that no Wealth Tax Returns were filed by the assessee for A.Y. 2006-07 to 2012-13 within the due dates and the returns of Wealth filed by the assessee on 19.02.2013 was after the date of search. He also noted that assessee had not furnished any reconciliation of jewellery found during the present search and the earlier search carried out on 08.05.2013 and since there was a substantial time gap between both the search, the claim of the assessee remained unverified. He also noted that no evidence of purchase of jewellery, vouchers of purchase or the source of purchase was furnished by the assessee. He also noted that assessee had surrendered sum of ₹ 35,79,530/- as undisclosed income. He therefore, considered the value of jewellery amounting to ₹ 3,94,80,175/- to have be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s made and for what purpose the payment was made. He submitted that without the particulars of recipients it is not possible to accept the claim of the assessee that the payments have been made only for the purpose of purchase of jewellery. He therefore submitted that the assessee be asked to produce the evidence regarding the destination of the payments claimed for the purchase of jewellery so that the claim of the assessee can be verified. He thus supported the order of AO. Learned AR on the other hand pointed to the findings of CIT(A) inter alia that the assessee had given the breakup of purchases made during A.Y. 2004-05 to 2012-13 which were duly supported by bank statements showing such purchases, bulk of the payments for purchases being made by cheque and other findings. He further in the written submissions stated as under: 9. At the outset it is submitted that the learned AO while framing the assessment had committed the following fundamental errors: (a) The first of it being that the learned AO had failed to appreciate that merely because the assessee was unable to reconcile the item wise jewellery found with the list of the inventory prepared on the date of sea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iv. GaurishankerOmkarmal vs. ITO: 37 TTJ 353 (Ahd.) v. DCIT vs. Arjun DassKalwani: 101 ITD 337 (Jodh.) vi. Sh. Arvind Agarwal and Sh. Subhash Agarwal: I.T.A. Nos.455, 277, 278 443/Ind/2013 (Indore) vii. Raj Kumar B Agrawal Vs DCIT 176 DTR (Pune) Trib 273 viii. ACIT vs Krishan Kumar Modi (ITA 2892 to 2894/Del/2017 3952 to 3956/Del /2017 dated 05.07.2019) (b) The second being the learned AO had conveniently ignored that the assessee held on 08.05.2003, the jewellery weighing 2625.840 gms out of an aggregate weight of jewellery found weighing 4514.300 gms. The remaining jewellery belonged to her daughter in law Smt. Divya Bhalla . He has also failed to appreciate that in the course of assessment proceeding u/s 158BC of the Act it was found that said jewellery is explained. The order of assessment had been placed before the AO and is at Pg. 170 178 of PB. The list of the inventory prepared on the date of search on 08.05.2003 are at Pg. 48 49, 53, 56 58 of PB. (c) The third of the error, which again was a fundamental, was that the learned AO had completely ignored the acquisition of jewellery by the assessee between the period 01.04.2003 to 31.03. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s undisputed fact that during the course of search at the residential premises of the assessee, jewellery was found. The assessee was asked to explain the source of its acquisition. The explanations given by the assessee about the source of acquisition of jewellery was not found acceptable to AO and accordingly AO made addition of ₹ 1,59,68,173/- in the hands of the assessee. When the matter was carried before CIT(A), the entire addition was deleted by him. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), Revenue is now before us. We find that CIT(A) while deleting the addition has given a finding that assessee had given the breakup of purchase of jewellery made during AY 2004-05 to 2012-13 duly supported by bank statements showing the details of such purchases and that the payment for bulk of the purchases have been made by cheque. He has further noted that the aforesaid details were available before the AO but the AO for mysterious reasons has not examined the same. He has also given a finding that assessee has also provided the capital accounts which are duly supported by purchases and which also support the year wise purchase as claimed by the assessee. He has further given a finding th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
