9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 954X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ER PER DR. B. R. R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of ld CIT(A)-24, New Delhi dated 21.02.2019. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: "1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXIV, New Delhi ['the Ld. CIT(A)'] has erred in upholding the order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-08, New Delhi ('the Ld. Assessing Officer') in upholding the addition of Rs.16,77,368/- made under section 69A on account of alleged unexplained investment in jewellery." 3. A search & seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted in the case of Priyagold Group of cases on 16.12.2014 by Investigation Wing, New Delhi. The assessee has re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... "undetected" during the search was sold and determined LTCG of Rs.71,86,743/-. Hence, the question to decide before us is whether the AO can resort to determination of notional LTCG or not. The shortage of jewellery could have been questioned at the time of search and any evidence with regard to the sale of jewellery should be collected during the search or post search enquiry. Nothing of such in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f jewellery be deleted. 5. With regard to the addition made u/s 69A, there were loose diamond as per the WTR and the jewellery seized of worth Rs.16,77,363/- which has been subsequently treated as unexplained investments. The submission of the assessee that the loose diamonds which were part of the Wealth Tax Return were studded in the jewellery subsequently and that was the reason that the descr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
