9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1725X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ficer first in Assessment Order u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act;) on 12.05.2011 and, thereafter, in pursuance to assessment order passed u/s 153A/153B/147 of the Act. As the issue involved in both the appeals are same, hence, we proceed to dispose of both the appeals by this common order. 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee had filed return showing total income of Rs. 1,59,33,480/-. A search and seizure operation was conducted on 11.09.2009 in the residential premises of the assessee at Flat No. 7B/2,3, Alipore Road, Kolkata 27. In course of search and seizure operation in his residential flat along with his brother, Sri Pradeep Kr. Saraogi, inter alia that a jewellery worth of Rs. 3,38 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Saraogi 3 Pradeep Kr Saraogi 11.030 9.786 6.220 4 Bhagwati Devi Sarawogi 5 Ranjana Saraogi 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 reconciliation statement was as under:- Sl No. Particulars Gross Wt. (gms) as per W.T Gold Wt. (gms) as per W.T. Diamond Cts as per WT Remarks 1 Not reconciled (c) 3164.160 2495.662 199.670 Grand Total (A+B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... possible since jewellery inventorized may not be exactly be in the lot as per in the return. Ld. CIT(A) relying on various decisions of Co-ordinate Benches wherein it has been held that jewellery has to be considered on the basis of gross weight even if item to item reconciliation of jewellery was not possible and he deleted the addition. 5. Being aggrieved, Department is in appeal before us and submitted the following grounds of appeal:- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that item to item reconciliation of jewellery was not required in a case where value of jewellery declared as per WT Return, purchases made thereafter and disclosure made during search exceeded the value of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Indian society, the yellow metal and diamond has assumed lot of significance for ladies which is a status symbol and they buy it or convert the jewellery as per the prevailing fashion. There has no gainsaying that fashion keeps on changing and, accordingly, the 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. 7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
