9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 1327X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urrenders before search/survey teams; then disclosing income in return, maintaining silence till completion of assessment, thus stopping AO from making further probe; and ultimately attempting before judicial forums to get out of undisclosed income . We are not inclined to accept this kind of strategy. Case of assessee does not involve any issue like exempted/non-taxable income wrongly assessed by AO or any statutory deduction/relief available to assessee remained unclaimed before AO; the case is very much different in which not only the assessee is trying to undo his own action but also dislodge the entire action/adjudication done undertaken by search- authorities as well as AO. Also CIT(A) s order is also suffering from a basic and grave fallacy. In the grounds raised by revenue, it is strongly claimed that the CIT(A) has erred in allowing assessee s claim of withdrawal of surrender without confronting AO. We find that the CIT(A) must have, before overturning AO s order on a significant issue, at least confronted the AO. Since it was not done, there is a clear case of wrong adjudication by CIT(A). We are inclined to uphold the order of AO and reverse the order of CIT(A). Ordered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeals are filed by revenue in the matters of three different assessees, forming part of a common search u/s 132. In these appeals, the revenue is impugning three separate appeal-orders, one in each assessee, all dated 08.11.2021 and all passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-3, Bhopal [ CIT(A) ]. Those impugned orders arise out of respective assessment-orders, all dated 31.12.2018 and all passed by learned ACIT, (Central), Ujjain, stationed at Indore [ AO ] u/s 143(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961 [ the Act ] for Assessment-Year [ AY ] 2017- 18. 2. Since the assessees are closely connected and form part of a common search u/s 132 undertaken by revenue authorities upon all of them, described together as Greater Kailash Hospital Group and the most prominent issue involved in all appeals is same; therefore these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of brevity and convenience. It is agreed by both sides that the assessee M/s Greater Kailash Hospital Private Limited can be treated as a lead-case and its appeal must be decided first and thereafter other appeals. We proceed as requested by parties. IT(SS)A No. 6/Ind/202 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee itself has surrendered income during the search proceeding in its statement recorded under 132(4) of IT act. 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in ignoring the fact that the income of Rs 229,00,000/- that was surrendered by the assessee in search proceedings was duly declared by the Assessee in its return of income filed under section 153A of IT act as income surrendered from cash deposits. 5. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in ignoring the fact that the assessee requested to withdraw the surrender amount after a prolonged period of search stating that surrender was made under undue stress and pressure. Whereas the assessee filed its return of income after 10 months of search showing this undisclosed income and during the assessment proceedings, the assessee never requested to withdraw the surrendered amount shown in return of income filed in response to notice under section 153A of IT oct 6. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the surrendered amount of cash of Rs 229,00,000/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions of Rs. 10,00,000/- made on account notional interest income related to abated Year. In doing so the Ld. CAT(A) has completely ignored the findings of AO made during the assessment proceedings. 13. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in not considering that assessee has maintained huge cash balance and also paid huge interest on loan taken by it. 14. The appellant craves right to add, amend or alter the grounds of appeal during or before the date of hearing of appeal. 4. Ld. DR for revenue submitted that the last Ground No. 14 is general in nature and no adjudication is required. Out of remaining 13 grounds, Ground No. 1 to 10 involve 1st issue of undisclosed income of Rs. 2,29,00,000/- and Ground No. 11 to 13 involve 2nd issue of addition of Rs. 10,00,000/-. Accordingly, the grounds can be grouped and adjudicated. Ground No. 1 to 10: 5. In these grounds, the revenue precisely claims that the CIT(A) has erred in excluding the income of Rs. 2,29,00,000/- from total income which was rightly assessed by AO in terms of sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act. The assessee has not offered explanation about the nature and source of the above income; therefore, tax is calculated as per provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. The manner in which the undisclosed income earned was not disclosed during the search proceedings u/s 132(4) of the Act. Therefore, in view of the provisions of section 271AAB of the Act, I am satisfied that penalty proceedings must be initiated for the amount of disclosure made u/s 132(4) of the Act. Hence, penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB are hereby initiated for assessment year 2017-18. 7. Thus, the AO assessed the income of Rs. 2,29,00,000/- as declared by assessee in its return but, however, with a limited modification i.e. while the assessee declared impugned income as Income from medical business/ profession , the AO characterized it as income u/s 68 read with section 115BBE because the assessee was unable to put forth any evidence in support of income from medical business/profession. However, during first- appeal before CIT(A), the assessee made an altogether different claim that the impugned income was not assessable at all and the same must be excluded from total income. The CIT(A) allowed assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or other particulars before them indicate that some refund or relief is due to him. This attitude would, in the long run, benefit the Department, for it would inspire confidence in him that he may be sure of getting a square deal from the Department. Although, therefore, the responsibility for claiming refunds and relief rest with the assessee on whom it is imposed by law, officers should: (a) draw their attention to any refunds or relief to which they appear to be clearly entitled but which they have omitted to claim for some reason or other; (b) freely advise them when approached by them as to their rights and liabilities and as to the procedure to be adopted for claiming refunds and reliefs. (ii). The decision of Hon'ble ITAT Kolkata Bench in the case of Sushil Kumar Das Vs Income Tax Officer as reported in [2011] 15 taxmann.com 52 wherein it has been held that: 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The moot question arising out of this appeal is whether the income determined by the Assessing Officer on the basis of the return filed by the assessee can be a figure lower than the income returned by the assessee. It is a well se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the judgment of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383. In view of the above, we direct the Assessing Officer to treat the aforesaid receipt of Rs. 2,53,730 as capital receipt which was received by him as per the order of the Hon'ble High Court. (iii) The moot question which arises here is that whether the appellant can withdraw income surrender/declared in return of income. Hon'ble Apex court in the case of CIT vs Shelly Products 129 taxmann 271 by passing a landmark judgment has held that any assessee by any way deposited abundant advance tax or self assessment tax which is in excess of liabilities can claim refund after making claim before AO and the AO after being satisfied shall grant relief as governed by section 240 of the Act. The relevant extract of judgment is reproduced as under:- 31. We cannot lose sight of the fact that the failure or inability of the revenue to frame a fresh assessment should not place the assessee in a more disadvantageous position than in what he would have been if a fresh assessment was made. In a case where an assessee chooses to deposit by way of abundant caution advance ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e proceeding, has claimed that the cash deposited in bank account was available as cash in hands as per audited books of accounts and was withdrawn from bank account time to time and on account of business receipts. In support appellant has also filed copy of cash book. The appellant has also contended that the surrender was made without any iota of incriminating document on record. I find strong force in the contentions raised by the appellant as there is no reference of any incriminating document in the body of assessment order by the ld AO. The ld AO has placed complete reliance on statement of director of the appellant recorded u/s 132(4), during the course of search and without making any reference of any seized material in support of his allegation. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd vs State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC) has categorically held that an admission in statement recorded on oath is an extremely important piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is conclusive and it is always open to the person who made the admission to show that it is incorrect. In the instant case, the surrender was not supported by any incriminat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rdingly, the ld AO is directed to exclude the amount of Rs. 2,29,00,000/- from the total income of the appellant. Therefore, appeal on these grounds is allowed. 8. After explaining background of issue, Ld. DR for revenue submitted that the department is strongly against the relief given by CIT(A) to assessee by upsetting the entire case. Ld. DR strongly supported the order of AO and opposed the order of CIT(A). He requested to uphold AO s order on following contentions: (i) Referring to revenue s plea in Ground No. 3 and 4, Ld. DR submitted that in the statements recorded by authorities u/s 132(4), the assessee himself admitted undisclosed income of Rs. 2,29,00,000/-. Thereafter, the assessee himself declared the said income in its return of income filed in response to notice u/s 153A. Thereafter, the AO assessed what was already declared by assessee in return of income. The AO only made a limited modification that he re-characterized the impugned income as income u/s 68 against assessee s claim of business income and that too for the reason that the assessee could not submit any evidence to establish as having earned from medical business/profession. Ld. DR submitted that the AO h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not sustainable as per various court decisions. (ii) He submitted that during search, there was a force and pressure upon assessee s director and family members, which is narrated in Para 1.4.2/Page 246 of Written-Synopsis and the same was also submitted to CIT(A) which is noted on Page No. 43 of order of CIT(A). He drew us to Page 53 of Paper-Book and submitted that in the Computation of Total Income filed to AO, the assessee has given a note to the effect that the deposit of Rs. 2.65 crore was made out of cash in hand available in assessee s regular books on 08.11.2016 but due to high handedness and great pressure by search officials, the directors were forced to surrender at least 90% of the amount deposited in Bank A/c. It is further mentioned in the said note To avoid litigation and penal proceedings, income surrendered during search (though explained from regular books of accounts), is being offered to tax in the computation of income. He also drew us to Page 114-115 of Paper-Book to show that in the letter dated 22.11.2018 filed during assessment-proceeding, the assessee re-iterated those very submissions to AO. Thus, Ld. AR submitted, the assessee included impugned income i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emonstrate exercise of any force. (ii) He drew us to Q.No. 4 of statement recorded u/s 132(4) where the assessee accepted to have made a cash deposit of Rs. 2,65,00,000/- in bank a/c. He drew us to Q.No. 7, where the assessee stated to have made withdrawal of Rs. 36,00,000/- from Bank A/c. It is after such statements that the assessee accepted to have earned the undisclosed income of Rs. 2,29,00,000/- not recorded in books of account and agreed to disclose the same in return and pay tax. Yet again in Q.No. 11, the assessee admitted undisclosed income of Rs. 2,29,00,000/-. Ld. DR submitted that the undisclosed income of Rs. 2,29,00,000/- is exactly and correctly admitted by assessee based on difference of Rs. 2,65,00,000/- (the amount deposited in bank) and Rs. 36,00,000/- (the source of deposit). Therefore, the very claim of assessee is that there was a force to surrender at least 90% of the amount deposited in Bank A/c and that is why assessee made surrender of Rs. 2,29,00,000/-, is an after-thought, totally wrong and far from truth. Ld. DR submitted that the assessee was very pretty sure that he is able to explain only part-amount and that is why admitted the remaining amount and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come at first in search before two witnesses; (ii) post-search the assessee did not make any retraction/complaint to higher authorities; (iii) then the assessee himself declared exactly same amount of admitted income in return of income filed in response to notice u/s 153A; (iv) during assessment- proceeding before AO, the assessee nowhere retracted/objected to assessment of income; the assessee only tried to explain the nature of income as coming from medical business/profession which the AO did not accept; (v) therefore, the AO assessed the same income as declared by assessee in return and the only modification done by AO was re- characterisation of nature of income. Thus, right from search-action till completion of assessment, the assessee had no objection, rather the assessee himself admitted, acknowledged and declared the impugned income in the statutory return filed u/s 153A. It is only in first-appeal that the assessee sought exclusion of income and the CIT(A) accepted assessee s claim. Now, the question is whether the relief given by CIT(A) is in order or not? 13. At first, we look into the decision of Hon ble apex court in Banna Lal Jat Construction (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2019 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ravelled to Hon ble Supreme Court. While deciding, the Hon ble Apex Court dealt the assessee s case very strongly and concluded thus Subsequent retraction from the surrender without having evidence or proof of retraction is not permissible in the eyes of law. The statement recorded during the course of search action which was in presence of independent witnesses has overriding effect over the subsequent retraction . Thus, the Hon ble Supreme Court is pretty hard in accepting retraction even. In the present appeal, the assessee has admitted undisclosed income in the statements recorded in presence of two witnesses u/s 132(4) with a clear acceptance that no force was exercised upon it. Even after completion of search, the assessee did not make any retraction/complaint to authorities. The matter does not stop here. Even in the return of income filed to tax department, the assessee himself included the impugned income. Even during assessment-proceeding undertaken by AO u/s 143(3), the assessee neither objected to inclusion of income nor made any claim for exclusion of impugned income before AO; the assessee only claimed that the impugned income was income from medical business/professi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee before appellate forums. 16. At this stage, we also find one more instance of this very assessee playing the same strategy, dealt by Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Indore in ITA No. 628/Ind/2019, order dated 10.02.2023 for AY 2013-14. In that case, a survey was conducted in past upon this very assessee wherein the assessee surrendered income of Rs. 5,83,25,000/-. Thereafter, in the return of income, the assessee included such income. The AO completed assessment after making some more additions/disallowances apart from assessing the undisclosed income already offered by assessee. The assessee allowed the AO to complete assessment. Then, the assessee went in first- appeal to contest only newer additions/disallowances made by AO but the assessee did not have any objection qua the undisclosed income. After finalisation of first-appeal, the assessee came to ITAT in a belated-appeal and requested to allow withdrawal of undisclosed income by filing additional grounds. The ITAT dismissed assessee s appeal; the order of ITAT is re-produced below: 3. The ld. Representative of the assessee (ld. AR), drawing our attention towards the affidavit of Dr. Anil Bandi sworn on 23.05.2019, submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation Ltd. (1998) 97 taxman 358 (SC). 6. Replying to the above, the ld. Sr. DR strongly opposed the condonation of delay and admission of new/additional grounds of appeal for AY 2013-14. 7. Drawing our attention to the relevant assessment order for AY 2013-14 dated 15.02.2016 u/s 143(3) of the Act, the ld. Sr. DR submitted that the assessee himself filed the return of income on 30.03.2013 declaring the taxable income at Rs. 5,83,25,000/- and the case was selected for scrutiny u/s 143(3) of the Act. The ld. DR further submitted that as per concluding para 8 of the said assessment order, it is clear that the AO accepted the return of income and made two additions only viz., addition of Rs. 6,22,252/- u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act and Rs. 7,00,852/- u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s 43B of the Act. The ld. Sr. DR further drew our attention towards Form No.35 filed by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) dated 31.03.2016 and submitted that the assessee has raised the sole ground challenging the addition made by the AO of Rs. 7,00,852/- and no other ground has been agitated or raised before the ld. CIT(A). Further drawing our attention towards the impugned first appellate order of the ld. CIT(A)-1, Indore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 7,00,852/- before the ld.CIT(A) and the ld.CIT(A) allowed the sole ground of the assessee deleting the said addition and, thus, there was no issue or ground for the assessee left unadjudicated to agitate before this Tribunal against order of CIT(A) dated 24.09.2018 for AY 2013-14. 9. The ld. Counsel of the assessee has prayed that the additional grounds of the assessee were not agitated before the ld. CIT(A), but, subsequently as advised by the tax consultant thus the same are being raised first time before the Tribunal. Therefore, the same may kindly be admitted for adjudication and the matter be restored to the file of the AO for examination and verification. 10. Now, we proceed to adjudicate the issue of condonation of delay of 156 days in filing the present appeal by the assessee. In this regard, in para 2.6 of the application/affidavit it has been mentioned as under:- 2.6. However, during the course of appeal as filed against the order passed under section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, it was explained that additional income to the tune of Rs. 5,83,25,000/- was offered for tax in the return of total income for the Assessment Year 2013-14 even though no corresponding entry ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the assessment order and, in the present case, the assessee availed this opportunity and filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) raising the sole ground of disallowance of Rs. 7,00,852/- which was allowed by the ld.CIT(A) vide order dated 24.09.2018 and no grievance of the assessee was left unaddressed after the order of the ld. CIT(A)-1, Indore dated 24.09.2018. 13. In the case of National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. (supra), the Hon ble Supreme Court held that: the power of the Tribunal in dealing with appeals is, thus, expressed in the widest possible terms. The purpose of assessment proceedings before taxing authorities is to assess correctly tax liability of as assessee in accordance with the law........ Then, the additional ground which goes to the root of the matter can be adjudicated without any extraneous material on the basis of the material already available on record and the same may be admitted for adjudication as additional ground. But, in the present case, the assessee is seeking admission of additional ground and restoration of the same to the file of the AO for examination, verification and adjudication. Therefore, as per the prayer of the assessee itself, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , it is clearly discernible that there was no such issue either before the AO or before the ld. CIT(A) for their consideration and adjudication. 15. Therefore, the application of the assessee for condonation of delay of 156 days and admission of new/additional grounds No.1 to 4 are dismissed. 16. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee, being not maintainable is dismissed in limine. Apparently, one may say that the ITAT did not condone the delay and dismissed appeal on belated-filing ground. That is true but a careful reading of Para No. 14 of order clearly demonstrates that the ITAT also observed that the grievance of the assessee pertaining to the grounds was neither discernible from assessment-order (nor from order of first appellate authority because of specific situation of that case). The Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT noted that in assessment-order, the AO has accepted the returned income of Rs. 5,83,25,000/- and has made only two additions, totalling to Rs. 13,23,104/-. Therefore, the assessee, by way of raising new/additional ground cannot be allowed to retract or revise its returned income without filing retraction-application and revised return of income within prescr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cal income of interest. The CIT(A) has, however, deleted addition, in Para No. 4.2.6 of appeal-order, by observing that the AO is not justified in bringing notional/hypothetical income to tax which was never earned by assessee. We agree with the view taken by Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, these grounds are dismissed. IT(SS)A No. 4/Ind/2022 Dr. Anil Bandi: 21. The grounds raised in this appeal are as under: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in accepting fresh evidence/grounds about withdrawal of income disclosed in return amounting to Rs 1,01,50,000/- in complete disregard to rule 46(A) as condition prescribed under clause (a)-(d) of rule 46A(1) of IT rules 1964 were not satisfied 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in accepting the plea of assessee regarding claim of withdrawal of income disclosed in the return of income amounting to Rs 1,01,50,000/- keeping in view that this claim was never made before the AO and also because the Ld. CIT(A) accepted this plea of assessee without offering any reasonable opportunity to AO in complete disregard to provisions o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to explain the nature and source of investment in excess jewellery found as seized during search as well as admitted undisclosed income by the assessee as no such explanation was given by the assessee during the search operation. The contention made by the assessee after search is merely an afterthought. 9. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the decision of Honble SC in the case of Bannalal Jat Construction (P) Ltd vs DCIT[2019] 106 Taxmann.com 128(SC) wherein hon'ble supreme court has held that since the assessee has itself declared the undisclosed income on the basis of evidence found during search, the mere fact that the director of assessee company retracted from statement at later point of time, could not make such statement unacceptable 10. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,00,000/- made u/s 69B on account of unexplained investment, Whereas the assessee in his statement accepted that LPS-1 of page no 5 5B is a hundi 11. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R supported AO s action and prayed to uphold the addition. 27. Per contra, Ld. AR for assessee carried us to the copies of seized documents placed in Paper-Book at Page No. 85 and 86 and successfully demonstrated that both of the documents are blank and do not contain any detail as to the name in whose favour they were issued by M/s SPS Jewellers. The AO has wrongly and on presumption basis, attributed those documents to assessee. Ld. AR submitted that the AO has disbelieved assessee s factual submission that those documents were left by some patient in hospital and made addition. Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has rightly given credence to assessee s submission and deleted addition; his order must be upheld. 28. We have considered submissions of both sides and perused the orders of lower-authorities. We find that the CIT(A) has passed following order while deleting addition: 4.4.2 I have considered the facts of the case, plea raised by the appellant before me as well as before AO has contended that the AO has invoked provisions of section 69B of the Act which can be invoked when any assessee has made investment and is found in possession of any bullion, jewellery or other valuat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re dismissed. IT(SS)A No. 5/Ind/2022 Dr. Radhika Bandi: 29. The grounds raised in this appeal are as under: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in law in accepting fresh evidence/grounds about withdrawal of income disclosed in return amounting to Rs 1,61,50,000/- in complete disregard to rule 46(A) as condition prescribed under clause (a)-(d) of rule 46A(1) of IT rules 1964 were not satisfied. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in accepting the plea of assessee regarding claim of withdrawal of income disclosed in the return of income amounting to Rs 1,61,50,000/- keeping in view that this claim was never made before the AO and also because the Ld. CIT(A) accepted this plea of assessee without offering any reasonable opportunity to AO in complete disregard to provisions of Sub-rule (3) of rule 46A of IT Rules 1964. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the assessee to withdraw the surrender amount of Rs 1,61,50,000/- from total income as shown by the assessee in her return of income. The Ld. CIT(A) h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as seized during search as well as admitted undisclosed income by the assessee as no such explanation was given by the assessee during the search operation. The contention made by the assessee after search is merely are afterthought 10. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the decision of Hon ble SC in the case of Bannalal Jat Construction (P) Ltd vs DCIT[2019] 106 Taxmann.com 128(SC) wherein hon'ble supreme court has held that since the assessee has itself declared the undisclosed income on the basis of evidence found during search, the mere fact that the director of assessee company retracted from statement at later point of time, could not make such statement unacceptable Total tax effect (see note below) Rs. 1,52,78,279/- 11. Whether there is any delay in filing of appeal (if yes, please attach application seeking condonation of delay) Yes /No Ground No. 1 to 7 and 10: 30. In these grounds, the revenue precisely claims that the CIT(A) has erred in excluding the income of Rs. 1,61,50,000/- from total income which was rightly assessed by AO in terms of section 68 read with section 115BBE. 31. Ld. Representatives of bo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r-Book), explaining correct and complete details of sources of jewellery and the same explanation was again submitted to AO vide letter dated 14.12.2018 during assessment-proceeding (Page 89-120 of Paper-Book) along with copy of affidavit and supporting evidences. However, the AO dis-regarded assessee s authentic submission and continued to make addition of Rs. 51,71,824/- for seized quantities. Ld. AR submitted that it is true that the assessee admitted undisclosed jewellery of Rs. 51,71,824/- during search but it is equally true that very soon, after completion of search, the assessee made a retraction and complete submission to Investigation Wing. Ld. AR submitted that it is a right of assessee to make authentic submission which is appreciated by CIT(A). Therefore, Ld. AR contended, the CIT(A) has given correct credit and thereafter deleted addition partly. Ld. AR submitted that the order of CIT(A) is more correct, legal and justified as compared to the order of AO; his order must be upheld. 35. We have considered rival submissions of both sides and perused the orders of lower-authorities as well as the documentary evidences filed in the Paper-Book to which our attention has bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Diamonds Pvt Ltd] 37.632 3.979 1,98,186 Total 74.889 9.069 5,21,600 Furthermore, Dr. Anil Bandi was having gold jewellery in his books of accounts of 200.00 gms valuating at Rs. 3,05,775/-, 4.5.2 On perusal of evidences on record viz purchase bills, valuation report dated 27.06.1988 and 28.03.1988 and WT return it can clearly be established that the AO has not provide correct relief to appellant and therefore, after considering all the evidences on record and Boards Circular No 1916 the following picture emerges out :- S.No Particulars Gold/ Gold Ornaments and Gold in Diamond Jewellery [Weight in Gms] Diamond in Diamond Jewellery [Weight in Carats] 1.1 Jewellery as accepted in the case of the appellant as disclosed in her Wealth Tax return 1,755,700 32.100 1.2 Gold/ Diamond jewellery as received in gift from mother on the occasion of birthday 74.889 9.069 2. Valuation report of valuer Shri Chandar Bhan Chopara dated 27-06-1988 in the case of Smt. Sarla Bandi (mother-in-law of the appellant] 1,024.250 0.80 3. Valuation report of valuer Shri Chandar Bhan Chopara dated 28-03-1988 in the case of HUF of Shri Kanhaiyalal Bandi 1,283.910 6.000 4.1 Jewellery as purchased by Dr. Anil Bandi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
