9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 252X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Gallery - HELD THAT:- We find that the DVO has also not pointed out any defect in the valuation report filed by the assessee nor there is any evidence on record to show that the AO has examined the valuation of the assessee. It can be seen from the two DVO s report that both the valuer of the department have valued the painting differently. This show that the opinion of the experts can also differ on the same set of facts In our considered opinion if the paintings are purchased in the year 2004 then the value cannot be added in the year under consideration more over even the department valuers have not expressed any reservations on the year of purchase shown by the valuer of the assessee, we do not find any reason to take any adverse view on that. The status of the family have already been explained while adjudicating ground No.1 (supra) - no merits in the impugned addition - Decided in favour of assessee. Addition u/s.69B of seized wrist watches - The status of the family, the returned income and the withdrawals have been discussed by us while adjudicating ground No.1 of assesse s appeal in detail wherein reference has been made to the judgment of the Hon ble High court of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee was asked to explain the source of acquisition of the above mentioned jewellery with documentary evidence. The assessee explained that jewellery found during the course of search is part of Wealth Tax return/ books of accounts of the assessee and filed a detailed reconciliation of jewellery with the Wealth Tax Return / books of accounts. 6. The reply of the assessee did not find any favour with the AO who was of the firm belief that the assessee has not submitted source of payment made for the purchase of the jewellery item and the assessee has not been able to reconcile the various items of jewellery with the valuation report. The AO made addition of Rs.26435029/- u/s.69B r.w.s. 115BE of the Act. The addition was challenged before the CIT(A) and once again a detailed reconciliation statement was furnished explaining the jewellery shown in the Wealth Tax Return and found at the time of search. 7. After considering the facts and the submissions the CIT(A) was satisfied with the reconciliation but was of the opinion that the colour stone/ pearls have not been properly reconciled and sustained the addition to the extent of Rs.331778/-thereby giving relief of Rs.26103 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant's explanation was that he was married about 25 years back and the jewellery comprised streedhan of Smt. Jyoti Chadha, his wife and other small items jewellery subsequently purchased and accumulated over the /ears. However, the Assessing Officer did not accept the above explanation on the ground that documentary evidence regarding family status and their financial position was not furnished by the appellant. The Assessing Officer accepted 400 grams of jewellery as explained and treated jewellery amounting to 506.900 grams as unexplained and made an ad hoc addition of Rs. 3.87,364 tinder section 69A of the Act working on unexplained jewellery, by applying average rate of the total jewellery found. The relevant portion of the assessment order reads as follows: a very reasonable allowance of ownership of gold jewellery to the extent of 400 grams is considered reasonable and the balance quantity of 506 grams by applying average rate, the unexplained gold jewellery is considered at Rs. 3,87,364 (506/900 x 6,93,582) u/s 69A of the Act. The CIT (A) confirmed this addition stating that the Assessing Officer had been fair in accepting the part of jewellery as unexplain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngs of the Tribunal are totally perverse and far from the realities of life. In the peculiar facts of this case we answer the question in favour of the assessee and against the revenue thereby deleting the aforesaid addition of Rs. 3,87,364. 15. In the light of the aforementioned judgment of the Hon ble Delhi High Court, the withdrawals made month after month cannot be brushed aside lightly and which are evident from 202 to 204 of the paper book and it can be seen that the withdrawals are enormous and needless to mention the returned income of the assessee is Rs.14.73 crores. The withdrawals and the returned income speak volumes about the richness of the family. 16. Considering all these facts in totality and in particular the wealth tax returns viz-a-viz the jewellery found. We do not find any merit in the impugned addition made by the AO we accordingly direct the AO to delete the entire addition of Rs.26435029/- thereby allowing ground No.1 of assessee s appeal and dismissing ground No.1 of revenue s appeal. 17. The ground No.2 relates to the addition of Rs.37.50 lacs u/s. 69B of the Act in respect of 6 paintings found at the residence of the assessee. The underlying f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he status of the family have already been explained while adjudicating ground No.1 (supra). Considering the facts in totality we do not find any merits in the impugned addition of Rs.5585000/-. We direct the AO to delete the same thereby allowing the ground No.2 of assesee s appeal and dismissing the ground No.2 of revenue s appeal ground No.3 relates to the addition of Rs.1.50 lacs u/s.69B of seized wrist watches. 23. The under lying facts are that during the search proceedings the wrist watches of Rs.1.50 lacs were seized and the assessee was asked to explain the source of acquisition with documentary evidences in its reply the assessee explained that the assessee and their family members are regular income tax assessee and the returned income has been filed for A.Y.2017-18 at Rs.9.50 crores and have sufficient household withdrawals, therefore, no addition should be made on this account. The explanation of the assessee was dismissed by the AO who was of the opinion that the assessee could not explain the source of investment and made the addition of Rs.1.50 lacs. 24. The status of the family, the returned income and the withdrawals have been discussed by us while adjudicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
