9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1725X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he jewellery is re-modeled from time to time according to the prevailing fashion. Under the facts and circumstances, comparison with the items of jewellery found at the time of search with wealth tax return, which were filed much earlier was putting an onerous task on assessee to prove something impossible, and assessee cannot be as bed to prove something which is beyond its control. We, accordingly, confirm the order of Ld. CIT(A) and this issue of Revenue s appeals are dismissed. - ITA No. 1776/Kol/2012 & IT(SS) No. 97/Kol/2013 - - - Dated:- 1-9-2015 - Shri S.V. Mehrotra, Accountant Member and Shri Mahavir Singh, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri K.K. Chhaparia, FCA. For the Revenue : Shri Niraj Kumar, CIT-DR. ORD ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the Wealth Tax return were filed by the family members before the date of search showing their respective jewellery. The details of the return of jewellery were as under:- Sl. No. Name of the family member Gross Wt. (gms) as per W.T Gold Wt. (gms) as per W.T. Diamond Cts as per Wt Remarks 1 Sushila Saraogi 1759.200 1539.958 195.690 2 Raj Kumar Saraogi 1102.400 1000.170 56.850 3 Pradeep Kr. Saraogi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i 68.540 63.142 26.990 6 Priyanka Saraogi 9 Nee Dhanuka) 1424.090 1310.792 347.820 7 Shyam Saraogi 145.150 132.894 44.530 Total (B) 1859.740 1713.418 496.220 Total (A+B) 7277,080 6374.056 1005.010 The details of jewellery offered by assessee as undisclosed vide the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed jewellery out of jewellery found valuing at ₹ 65,76,777/- and, therefore, he concluded that jewellery amounting at ₹ 99,72,221/- remained not tallied. As the assessee had made the disclosure of ₹ 75 lakh, the AO made the addition of ₹ 24,72,221/-. Aggrieved, assessee went in appeal before Ld. CIT(A). 4. The assessee had, inter alia, submitted that gross weight of diamond and gold as per regular returns (including voluntarily offerings by assessee) was higher than the jewellery inventorized on search. It was pointed out that the ladies are in the habit of jewellery having different combinations i.e. some part of one set may be mixed with another set and, therefore, item to item reconciliation could not be possib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ight 8869.718 gms) and 1204.680 carat of diamond was explained in the hands of assessee and his family members which is not disputed. On the other hand, gold jewellery of gross weight 8905.410 grams (net weight 7655.910 gms) and 968.230 carats of diamond was found at the time of search. These basic details are not disputed/controverted in any manner by the Department. The only dispute was that assessee was not being able to reconcile item-wise jewellery which were found at the time of search vis- -vis the wealth tax and purchases made during the financial year by assessee. In this regard, we are in agreement with the findings of Ld. CIT(A) that items of jewellery are often subjected to remaking on account of changing fashion and designs. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
