9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 1582X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... premises of the assessee and his brother Shri S.P.Karthik on the basis of the warrant dated 17-11-20200. Subsequent to the search, block assessment proceedings were initiated against the assessee. Return for the block period was filed by the assessee declaring undisclosed income of ₹ 80,240/-. During the search it seems gold jewellery weighing 3139.900 grams were found alongwith certain other records, in the premises of the assessee. As per the panchnama the jewellery belonged to the following persons in quantity mentioned against their respective names: Smt. Kaladevi -wife of the assessee. 1769.10 gms. Smt. S.P.Geetha mother of the assessee 1219.00 Smt. Padmasini- mother of Smt. S.P.Geetha 52.00 Smt. Praharshita, W/o Sri Hiralal- sister-in-law of Smt. S.P. Geetha 109.80 However, on actual weighment, as per the AO, the jewellery belonging to assessee s wife Smt. Kaladevi came to 1751.95 grams only. It seems 35.05 carets of diamond jewellery were also, as per the AO, explained by the assessee as belongin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roved. Or in other words, the AO accepted the source for 960 gms. of gold jewllery and 23 carets of diamond given by the assessee. AO therefore considered that out of 1751.95 gms. explained by the assessee, as belonging to his wife, at the time of search, 960 gms. was substantiated leaving a balance of 791.95 gms. of gold jewellery. From this 791.95 grms AO further deducted 40 gms. of gold jewellery admitted as purchased by the assessee in the statement filed alongwith his block assessment return and finally concluded that the assessee was unable to explain 751.95 gms. of gold. Similarly against 35.05 carets of diamond jewellery, AO accepted explanation for 23 carets leaving a balance of 12.05 carets. These were considered as undisclosed investment, valued at ₹ 5,86,145/- and addition made. 4. In his appeal before the CIT(A) argument of the assessee was that he was required to explain possession of total 2053.100 gms. of gold jewellery and 39.05 carets of diamond jewellery against 1751.95 grms gold and 35.05 carets of diamond jewellery considered by the AO. According to the assessee, the difference was on account of mistaken identification of jewellery belonging to assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gms. considered by the AO as purchases for which no evidence was filed, ld.CIT(A) was of the opinion that these were explained by the assessee as to have been made out of advance money of ₹ .50 lakhs received by him, for sale of a property. In the result, against the gold jewellery of 1035.900 gms. and diamonds of 17.05 carets, 900 gms. and 15 carets respectively were considered as explained by the Ld. CIT(A), leaving a balance of 135.90 grams of gold jewellery and 2.05 carets of diamond jewellery. Result was that addition to the extent of 135.900 grams of unexplained gold jewellery and 2.05 ct. of diamond jewellery were sustained by the ld. CIT(A). Consequently the addition towards unexplained jewellery was whittled down to ₹ 1,03,378/- against ₹ 5,86,145/- originally made by the AO. 5. Now before us, the ld. DR submitted that no evidence whatsoever was brought out by the assessee for purchase of 300 gms. of gold jewellery during the period February 2000 to January 2001. According to him, CIT(A) has just taken a presumption that assessee was left with sufficient money of the sum of ₹ 50 lakhs received by him as advance for sale of land. Vis- -vis the anc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ineage of the assessee which has not been disputed by the Revenue, runs as under: M.K. Rajagopaliar (Husband) M.K.R.J. Thuasiammal (wife) S.R. Thangamani Ammal (wife) Shri S.S. Rangachari (husband) Shri Prem Mohan Smt. S.P. Geetha (w/o Prem Mohan) Sons- Shri S.P. Sanjai and Shri S.P. Karthik. Claim of the assessee was that 2432.46 grams of gold jewellery and 40.75 carets of diamond jewellery were received from the above persons Ld. CIT(A) accepted 600 gms. of gold jewellery and 15 ct. of diamond jewellery therefrom. The question is whether Estate Duty assessment of M.K. Rajagopaliar and Wealth-tax assessment of S.R. Thangamani Ammal were sufficient to come to a conclusion that jewellery owned by them were all received by the assessee. Gold jewellery of 2432.46 gms. diamond jewellery of 40.75 carets were reflected in the Estate Duty and Wealth-tax assessments of the mentioned persons, which position is mentioned by the CIT(A) at page 24 of his order and not rebutted by the Revenue. However, in our opinion, just because the forefathers of the assessee were having jewellery in their custody, it could not mean that all such jewellery would have been received by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
