9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 686X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e AO with a direction to do this exercise of quantifying the weight of diamond and gold jewellery on the date of search and that has been declared in the Wealth Tax Return prior to the date of search. If the assessee in the wealth tax return has not quantified the weight of such diamond/gold jewellery and consolidated value has been given, then the same, in our opinion has to be brought down to the quantity of diamond and gold jewellery by adopting the market value as on the date of valuation. Thereafter due credit should be given for new purchases as per availability of cash. AO shall decide the issue as per fact and law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The grounds raised by the assessee on this issue are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA No. 649/Hyd/2020 - - - Dated:- 14-7-2022 - Shri R.K. Panda, Accountant Member AND Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Smt. S. Sandhya, Advocate For the Revenue : Shri K.P.R.R.Murty, DR ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, A.M This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 24.9.2020 of the learned CIT (A)-12, Hyderabad relating to A.Y.2015-16. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accounts of assessee and her spouse during FY 2014-15 is Rs.25,84,000/-. He, therefore, held that only cash withdrawals of Rs.25,84,000/- being the withdrawals in financial year 2014-15 can be considered for explanation of the sources of excess jewellery worth Rs.1,12,95,600/-. The Assessing Officer accordingly brought to tax the balance amount of Rs.87,11,600/-. 3. Before the learned CIT (A), the assessee made elaborate arguments. However, the learned CIT (A) was not fully satisfied with the arguments advanced by the assessee and gave partial relief of Rs.27,56,250/- and sustained an amount of Rs.59,55,350/- by observing as under: 5.3 I have carefully considered the submissions made by the appellant as well as the observations of the AO in the impugned order. Briefly the facts are, during the course of search on 07/04/2017, Jewellery whose value is estimated at Rs.2,17,95,600/- was found with the appellant. During assessment proceedings, the assessee stated that she has filed the Wealth Tax return for AY 2014-15 declaring gold and silver totaling to Rs.1,08,75,000/-. During AY 2015-16 i.e., current year, the assessee voluntarily filed the Wealth Tax Return on 05/06/2017 by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alth would be 85% of the gross wealth declared and hence the benefit of 15% should be granted while setting off the estimated value on the date of search. On perusal of the Wealth tax return it is seen that the appellant has declared wealth on account of Jewellery of Rs.1,08,75,000!- and there is no admission of net wealth by reducing 15% of the same as per Rule 3 of Wealth tax Rules. The appellant has reduced RS.30 lakhs from the returned wealth and paid wealth tax @1% on the net wealth. Therefore, the proposition of the appellant is not acceptable and is rejected. 5.3.4 The last proposition is that the appellant and her husband had withdrawn Rs.91.61Iakhs during the financial years 2014-15,2015-16 2016-17 which would cover the unexplained Jewellery in the hands of the appellant as it was utilized for purchasing Jewellery. It is seen from the assessment order that the AO has already given the benefit of cash withdrawals of Rs.24,84,000/- in AY 2015-16 while computing the excess jewellery. The withdrawals in AY 2014-15 were already incorporated in the Wealth Tax return and a second benefit of the same cannot be given. Hence this proposition of the appellant is not acceptable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase. 7. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the AO and learned CIT (A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us by both sides. We find the Assessing Officer in the instant case made addition of Rs.87,11,600/- being unexplained jewellery found during the course of search. We find the learned CIT (A) sustained an addition of Rs.59,55,350/-, the reasons of which are already reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the assessee that during the course of search at the premises of the assessee gold jewellery weighing 5543grams (net.wt.) and 175.30 carat diamond jewellery were found which was valued by the Registered Valuer at Rs.2,17,95,600/-. The Assessing Officer after considering the gold and diamond jewellery shown in the Wealth Tax Returns for the A.Ys 2014-15 2015-16 made addition of the balance amount of Rs.87,11,600/- on the ground that the assessee could not explain the source of the same. It is her submission that after the Wealth Tax Returns filed for the A.Y 2014-15, the assessee had made certain purchases in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
