9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 185X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hed aside. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 3,31,200/- out of Rs. 5,00,000/- in respect of cash found during the course of search is deleted. Remaining addition is sustained. - ITA No. 2203/DEL/2022 ITA No. 2204/DEL/2022 - - - Dated:- 10-3-2023 - SHRI KUL BHARAT , JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Assessee : Ms. Rano jain, Adv; Shri D.C. Garg, CA; Ms. Mansi Jain CA For the Department : Shri Sanjay Nargas, Sr. DR ORDER PER KUL BHARAT , JM : The captioned appeals, preferred by the assessees of the same group, pertaining to the assessment year 2018-19, were heard together and are being disposed of by a consolidated order for the sake of convenience. First we take up ITA No. 2204/Del/2022. ITA No. 2204/Del/2022 (A.Y. 2018-19): 2. This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Kanpur-4, dated 13.07.2022, pertaining to the assessment year 2018-19. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. That having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case, Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kanpur, has erred in law as well as on facts by disposing the appeal with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e residence of the assessee was kept in a plastic box separately and it was stated that this jewellery belonged to one Mrs. Sakshi Kaura w/o Shri Puneet Kaura, which was kept for sale/exchange. Learned counsel submitted that even during the course of recording of statement father of the assessee had stated that the jewellery belonged to Smt. Sakshi Kaura. Learned counsel submitted that the authorities below failed to appreciate the facts in right perspective. Learned counsel further reiterated the submissions as made in the synopsis. For the sake of clarity synopsis of the assessee are reproduced as under: SYNOPSIS ISSUE OF JEWELLERY AO s ADDITION Found Seized Addition made Shri Uday Sethi 12,19,905 - - 44,53,226 31,78,150 31,78,150 Shri Sunil Sethi 7,33,580 7,33,580 7,33,580 After CIT(A) Order Shri Uday Sethi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly Sethi also belonged to the assessee s family. Without prejudice to our submission against the enhancement, even if for the sake of argument, it is taken to be correct, the addition confirmed in the hands of Sunil Sethi can also be deleted as there are several judicial pronouncements, which say that taking consideration of the stature of the family, petty amounts of jewellery over and above the CBDT circular should also not be added. Reliance is placed on the following judgements: 1. Ashok Chadha vs. ITO,ITA 274/2011, dt. 05.07.2011, Delhi High Court 2. Sushila Devi vs. CIT, W.P. 7620/2011, dt. 21.10.2016, Delhi High Court 3. Haroon Mohd. Vs. ITO, ITA 463/M/2012, dt. 31.01.2014 Even otherwise, as per the statement of Shri Sunil Sethi as reproduced by the Ld. CIT(A) at Pg. 16 of his order, the jewellery belonged to Smt. Dolly Sethi. However, no such addition was made in her hand. 5. On the other hand learned DR opposed the submissions and supported the orders of the authorities below. 6. I have heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The Assessing Officer made the impugned addition on account of unexplained ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case, Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kanpur, has erred in disposing the appeal on the ground of loan against pledged of the jewellary which was not raised in the appeal. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, or vary from the aforesaid grounds of appeals at or before the time of hearing. 9. The facts are identical as were in ITA no. 2204/Del/2022. The learned authorized representatives have also adopted the same arguments. Learned counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as made in the written submissions. 10. Apropos to addition on account of cash found, it was submitted that the amount of Rs. 3,31,200/- related to the company in which the assessee was a director. It was stated that an agreement to sell was entered between the company and Shri Rajeev Chawla. The cash was received as an advance for sale of property. Learned counsel pointed out to the agreement to sell. 11. Regarding ground nos. 3,4 5 i.e. the addition relating to unexplained jewellery, learned counsel for the assessee reiterated the same submissions as were made in the case of Shri Udai Sethi in ITA no. 2204/Del/2022 12. On the other hand, learned DR s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
