9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 1337X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case are that the AO observed that during the course of search under section 132 of the IT Act, 1961, carried out on 16.7.2009 in the case of N.R. Agarwal Group and others, jewellery of yellow metals and diamond were found and seized from the residential premises of the assessee. Further, the jewellery found in lockers were operated and brought to the residence of the assessee and valued. The family of Shri Gajendra Agarwal consists of himself, his wife Smt. Meena Agarwal and daughter Neha Agarwal and Nikhar Agarwal. The details of the jewellery found and seized are as under: Jewellery Found Jewellery seized Name of assessee Premises Diamond Gold in gram (Gross Wt.) Silver (in kgs.) Value (in Rs.) Diamond Gold in grams Silver Value (in Rs.) Mrs. Meena G. Agarwal Residence at Kaaushalya, Juhu Scheme, Mumbai 5776 325.10 - 3921655 - - - - Mrs. Meena G. Agarwal Residence at Kaaushalya, Juhu Scheme, Mumbai - 245.600 - 300140 - - - - Mrs. Meena G. Agarwal on person - 0.040 21.300 - 25249 - - - - Mrs. Meena G. Agarwal Residence at Kaaushalya, Juhu Scheme, Mumbai - - 56 1008000 - - - - Mrs. Meena G. Agarwal Residence at Kaaush ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion report of the departmental valuer made at the time of search tallied with the jewellery mentioned in the valuation report of the assessee enclosed with the wealth tax return; ii) Jewellery to the extent of Rs. 10,02,596/- has been remade/altered from the original jewellery which has been disclosed by the assessee in her wealth-tax return. The assessee has enclosed remaking bills along with the application; iii) There was calculation error to the extent of Rs. 77,107/-. 6. The AO, thereafter, observed that these pleas of the assessee are not acceptable for the following reasons: i) Gross weight of the jewellery ii) Carat weight of diamond/stone iii) Number of pieces of diamond/stone iv) Description of the jewellery in the departmental valuation report and assessee's valuation report. 7. It was found that there was gross variation in either or all of the above criteria. The jewellery, which was found to be not matching in any of these four criteria with the assessee's valuation report, was therefore seized. The assessee has raised the plea that jewellery to the extent of Rs. 74,64,673/- which has been seized was matching or nearly matching with the valuation report ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,057, the appellant has filed reconciliation of diamond jewellery as narrated in detail above. As mentioned by the Assessing Officer on page - 3 of the assessment order that 552.95 carats of diamond was found during the search as against 965.48 carats of diamonds declared in Wealth Tax Return prior to the date of search. The addition of unexplained diamond jewellery has been made if discrepancy between assessee's valuation report and the Departmental Valuer's report prepared at the time of search was noticed on any of the four criteria adopted by the Assessing Officer. These criteria were gross weight, carat weight of diamonds, number of pieces of diamonds and description of jewellery. Similar situation was faced by the assessee at the time of block assessment relevant to the search initiated on 1st December, 1995. The DCIT, Special Range - 40, Mumbai, passed order under Section 158BC(c) r.w.s 143(3) of the IT Act with the approval of Commissioner of Income Tax on 23red December, 1996. In that order, one pair jhumkis, one necklace set, four bangles of diamond and one ring of diamond were treated as explained on the ground that description of the jewellery were same or almos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any of the criteria i.e. gross weight, carat weight, number of diamonds and description of the item should not be made the sole criteria. Minor difference in description in items may be due to nomenclature used by two valuers, minor difference in number of diamonds can be due to human error in counting very small size of diamonds and negligible difference in carat weight can be due to human error and perception of the valuer. At times, the diamond jewellery items are refixed due to loss of small diamonds and loosening of the studded diamonds and there may be minor difference in number of diamonds due to this reason also. The assessee's explanation for (discrepancy in diamond items related to reconciliation statements mentioned above get strength from the fact that these items were continuously included in the valuation reports prepared by the assessee's valuer as on 13th December, 1997 prepared at the time of VDIS, 25th June, 1998, 23rd July, 2001 and 20th August, 2005 and the same were disclosed in the Wealth Tax Return. The overall diamond jewellery found during the search is less than the diamond jewellery declared in WT Return. In view of the fact that there is minor d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dded in the jewellery, the explanation of reconciliation statement (24), (25) and reconciliation statement (C), the appellant's explanation cannot be accepted and the diamond jewellery mentioned in these reconciliation statement are treated as different and unexplained and addition made on account of unexplained investment in these items which comes to Rs. 20,71,372 is confirmed. The appellant has in her alternate submission claimed the credit as per CBDT Circular No. 1916, dated 11th May, 1994 but the same cannot be granted as no seizure of separate gold jewellery was made and no separate addition was made for the gold ornaments. No gold ornaments belonging to the three persons were also claimed during the course of search proceedings or during assessment proceedings. The appellant has also not identified the items belonging to these three persons. Thus, the ground of appeal is partly allowed." 10. Being aggrieved with the said order of the CIT(A) both the Revenue and the assessee are in appeal before us. 11. The AR of the assessee submitted that this Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Liza Girish Shah Vs. DCIT, in ITA No.2516 and 2685/Ahd/2010 order dated 21.6.2013 has he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e CIT(A) that minor difference in description of jewellery in two valuation reports is possible, because of difference in nomenclature used by two valuers, the minor difference in number of small diamonds is possible on the facts of the case, because of human counting error or because of normal wear and tear, and nominal difference in weight could also be on account of two different perceptions of jewelers. We, thus, do not find any force in the appeal of the Revenue, and accordingly, the same is dismissed. 17. Coming to the cross-objection of the assessee, we find that the assessee relied on the above quoted decision of the Tribunal, wherein it was held that gold jewellery to the extent of gross weight already disclosed should not be treated as undisclosed, because description of the jewellery keep on changing on remaking of jewellery. 18. We find that this decision was not cited, and therefore, could not be taken into consideration by the lower authorities. We find that no finding has been recorded by the lower authorities as to whether the jewellery found during the course of search, which were not tallied with the description of jewellery given in the valuation report filed w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
