9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 459X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... husband. On keeping the relationship between the donor and the Assessee in mind and we are of the opinion that the CIT(A) committed error in rejecting the claim of the Assessee regarding 350 grams jewellery without appreciating the facts narrated in the affidavit. In respect of the gold jewellery of 27.9 grams are concerned, the same has been valued at Rs. 82,703/-. Considering the statues of the family, which is admittedly been searched, the authorities below have committed error in doubting the same. In any case, the said 27.900 grams could have been accepted as 'Stridhana'. Regarding the silver jewelry of 85.5 grams are concerned, as per the valuation the same is valued at Rs. 3,420/-, however, the AO committed error in valuing the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t prejudice to G.No.1, under the facts and circumstances, the copy of notice already issued u/s. 143(2) Dtd.13.04.21, again served alongwith DIN Dtd.18.08.21 cannot be assumed as a fresh notice on 18.08.21 alongwith DIN Dtd.18.08.21, further, in any case, notice u/s. 143(2) could had been issued only upto 30.06.21 i.e. within period of 03 months from the end of financial year in which the ITR has been filed, as per the law applicable at that time. 3. That under the facts and circumstances, the impugned asstt. order Dtd.27.09.21 communicated on ITBA is unsustainable in law and should be deemed to never has been issued for the reason of issuing DIN thereof on 29.09.21 and in the absence of quoting of DIN in body of asstt. order, as mandated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccount of unaccounted money. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 27/09/2021, the Assessee preferred an Appeal before the CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 20/06/2023, dismissed the Appeal filed by the Assessee. Aggrieved by the order dated 20/06/2023 passed by the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee preferred the present Appeal on the Grounds mentioned above. 4. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the Assessee will not be pressing Ground No. 1 to 3. Accordingly, Ground No. 1 to 3 of the Assessee are dismissed as not pressed. 5. The Ld. counsel for the Assessee submitted that both the Lower Authorities have erred in law and on merits in making/sustaining addition of Rs. 12,93,307/- u/s 69A of the Act as unexplained jewellery out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Sh. S. S. Lal filed an affidavit on behalf of his deceased wife before the Ld. CIT(A) stating that the 350 grams of gold has been gifted by the wife late Lalita Devi. Further contended that, in the earlier affidavit, the said Sh. S. S. Lal has not disclosed regarding individual gift given by his wife and filing of the affidavit before the Ld. CIT(A) is an afterthought. Thus, the Ld. Departmental Representative sought for upholding the addition. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. On perusal of the record, it is found that Smt. Vimla Devi died on 08/04/2021 i.e. prior to passing of the assessment order. Thus, the Assessee could not file the affidavit of Smt. Vimla Devi and substantiate the claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
