9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 1056X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the contents of the affidavit, inter alia, pertaining to Stridhan, furnished by the assessee before the Learned Assessing Officer were never controverted by him. 3. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) further erred in confirming the said amount ignoring the status of the assessee and the customs prevalent in the society to which the assessee belongs 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) further failed to appreciate that the learned Assessing Officer had accepted the gold portion of the jewellery found during the search but failed to accept the value of the diamonds/ precious/ semi-precious stones embedded in them. 5. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) further failed to appreciate that there is not even an iota of evidence that the assessee had invested in the said jewellery out of unexplained sources, and thus, in absence of which no addition could be made u/s 69B of the Income Tax Act. 6. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming an addition of Rs. 4,49,750 made by the assessing officer being ½ share of the cash found from the Joint locker of the assessee, with total disregard to the fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al income of the assessee as per section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Since, the locker No. L-953 was jointly hold by Smt. Jasmine Anand and Smt. Jaswinder Kaur Anand, the cash of Rs. 8,99,500/- was distributed equally between both the account holders and an amount of Rs. 4,49,750/- being 50% of total cash found and seized was added to the total income of the assessee on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on substantive basis. 6. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition. 7. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. 8. During the hearing, the ld. AR reiterated the arguments taken up before the ld. CIT(A). It was argued that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.4,49,750/- for cash found in the Locker No. L-953, without appreciating the fact that the cash was partly withdrawn from various banks and partly gifts received from relatives on different occasions and pin money. The ld. AR submitted that the assessee belongs to the ALP group of industries which is a reputed name in the market. The assessee belongs to the upper higher strata of the society and it is very common for the assessee and her family to receive gi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ound that the assessee did not withdraw any cash from any of its bank accounts. In absence of any justification or documentary evidence regarding source of cash found in the locker no. L-953 was treated as unexplained money and added to the total income of the assessee as per the section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Since, the locker No. L-953 was jointly hold by Smt. Jasmine Anand and Smt. Jaswinder Kaur Anand, the cash of Rs. 8,99,500/- was distributed equally between both the account holders and an amount of Rs. 4,49,750/- being 50% of total cash found and seized was added to the total income of the assessee on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on substantive basis. Jewellery: 15. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.25,78,237/- on account of difference in the jewellery and Rs.16,082/- on account of unexplained bullion on protective basis, Rs.82,43,262/- on account of jewellery on protective basis and Rs.78,69,870/- on account of value of solitaire ring in addition to the unexplained cash of Rs.4,49,750/-. 16. The ld. CIT(A) deleted an amount of Rs.5,45,400/- and confirmed an amount of Rs.20,32,837/- out of the addition of Rs.25,78,237 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has a returned income in the range of Rs.31 lacs to Rs.42 lacs as per the returns. 22. The statement showing the incomes of the assessee is as under: Assessment Year Taxable Income Exempt Income Original ITR Acknowledgment no. 2012-2013 31,10,400.00 1,00,000.00 477884970310812 2013-2014 36,28,890.00 1,00,000.00 6878488100270713 2014-2015 37,93,410.00 1,10,000.00 27722736029-714 2015-2016 38,10,120.00 1,50,000.00 740184810290815 2016-2017 39,20,520.00 1,50,000.00 323035030280716 2017-2018 42,96,020.00 3,24,000.00 922302630250717 23. The assessee stated that the income for all the years had fallen into the highest tax bracket which shows that the assessee has been earning substantial Income clearly establishing the status. It has time and again been held that due credit of the same has to be allowed by the Assessing Officer looking and appreciating the status, customs, and traditions relating to the family. Reliance is being placed upon following decisions: * Ashok Chaddha vs. ITO, 14 taxmann.com 57 (Delhi) * Vibhu Aggarwal vs. DCIT, 93 taxmann.com 275 (Delhi - Trib.) * Tara Devi Goenka vs. CIT 122 ITR 14 (Cal) * Ms. Pooja Shree Chouksey Vs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and circumstances of the case as well as the status of the family and on the anvil of the judgement of the High Court of Delhi in the case of Ashok Chadha vs. ITO reported in 14 taxmann.com 57 (Delhi.)/202 Taxman 395, the explanation given by the assessee's counsel is accepted. Accordingly the orders of the authorities below are cancelled and addition made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) amounting to Rs. 10,65,312/- on account of purported unexplained Jewellery claimed by the assessee is deleted. 7. In the result, Assessee's appeal is allowed." 26. The Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Delhi in the case of Vibhu Aggarwal vs. DCIT 93 taxmann.com 275 (Delhi - Trib.) held that where Assessing Officer under section 69A made addition on account of jewellery found in search of assessee, since assessee belonged to a wealthy family and jewellery was received on occasions from relatives, excess jewellery was very much reasonable and, thus, no addition under section 69A was called for. The operative part of the judgment is reproduced below: "2. The brief facts of the case are that a search & seizure operation under section 132 of the IT Act was conducted at the business premises of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmitted the bill dated 04.05.2017 showing purchase of 7.01 cts. of diamonds worth Rs.26,68,420/- from Naulakha Jewellers. * The assessee has made payments through ICICI Bank for Rs.26,68,420/- in three installments from 28.02.2017, 16.05.2017 and 14.08.2017. * The valuer Sh. Kailash Chauhan valued the ring at Rs.1,05,38,300/- on 12.01.2018, the date of search. * The valuer determined diamonds of 7.01 cts. and gross weight of 8.55 gms. 33. Hence, it can be considered that the diamonds and the purchase thereof has been duly explained and the difference is due to valuation. The Assessing Officer has accepted the fact that the diamonds have been indeed purchased from Naulakha Jewellers. The size of the diamonds in the valuation report is exactly similar as what has been purchased by the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) relied on the judgments in the case of, * Gautam Laljibhai Gajjar Vs. ITO (37 ITD 514) * Dinesh Jain Vs. DCIT (34 SOT 444) * CIT Vs. Smt. Shakuntala Devi (316 ITR 46) (Del.) * K.P. Varghese Vs. ITO (131 ITR 597) (SC) 34. Having gone through the facts of the case narrated above and judgments relied upon by the ld. CIT(A), we are in total agreement with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
