ITAT correctly deleted additions for unexplained jewellery, paintings and watches during search under section 132

Delhi HC upheld ITAT's deletion of additions for unexplained jewellery, paintings and wrist watches during search u/s 132. For jewellery, family's wealth tax return showed higher value than seized items with proper reconciliation. For paintings, multiple valuations differed and assessee provided purchase details with banking evidence for recent acquisition. For watches, substantial declared income and withdrawals justified deletion. Court found ITAT's factual findings non-perverse based on evidence presented.

---

---

Issues:
The judgment concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19 and involves a search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the Minda Group, leading to the discovery of articles like jewellery, paintings, and wrist watches at the residence of the respondent/assessee.

Jewellery Addition:
The Tribunal observed that the jewellery declared in the wealth tax return exceeded the jewellery found during the search. The respondent submitted item-wise reconciliation and valuation reports, which the AO failed to refute. The Tribunal considered the family's lifestyle, income, and wealth tax return, ultimately deleting the entire addition made for jewellery.

Paintings Addition:
Valuers appointed by both parties provided varying valuations for the paintings. The Tribunal noted the year of purchase, especially for paintings bought in 2004, and found no defects in the respondent's expert valuation report. Considering the differing expert opinions and lack of objections from the appellant's valuers, the Tribunal deemed the addition unjustified and deleted it.

Wrist Watches Addition:
The Tribunal considered the family's income in the previous AY and the substantial withdrawals, leading to the deletion of the additions for wrist watches. The Tribunal's decision was supported by the declared income and withdrawal amounts, with no objections raised by the appellant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's factual findings were deemed reasonable, with no proposed questions of perversity by the appellant. As a result, the appeal was closed, as no substantial question of law was found to be raised for consideration by the court.

---