TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (3) TMI 250
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated order for the sake of convenience. Raj Kumar Agarwal, ITA No. 198/Jd/2003, C.O. No. 39/Jd/2003 2. Briefly stated, the facts of this case are that search action was taken against the assessee on 31st Oct., 2000 during the course of which certain incriminating material/documents were found. A combined panchnama was drawn for the residence situated at C-39, Ambawadi, Jaipur, jointly occupied by Shri Tara Chand and Shri Raj Kumar, the assessee in the instant case. In the bedroom of Smt. Archana, jewellery listed at pp. 1 and 2 of Annex. J was found having gross weight of 1009.120 gms. and 747.700 gms., as against net weight 897.00 gms. and 619.470 gms., respectively. The AO treated gross weight of 747.700 gms. as not explained. Item ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....; -------------- 3342.220 gms. ------------------------------------------------- Hence it is clear that as against 3342.220 gms. of gold jewellory declared by the assessee and his other family members, gold ornaments found at the time of search were only 2072.25 gms. and hence gold ornaments were less by 1269.97 gms. There is nothing on record to show that the gold jewellery belonging to the mother of the assessee who was residing in the same premises wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Details of investment made by the three persons in the asst. yrs. 1997-98 to 2001-02 were at Rs. 18,34,565. The AO considered a sum of Rs. 3,62,177 as not utilized towards construction thereby leaving a sum of Rs. 14,72,388 available for construction. The difference in the two figures being the amount worked out by the DVO and investment accepted to have been made by the co-owners was worked out at Rs. 6,49,712. The assessee being 1/4th co-owner, the AO made addition of Rs. 1,62,428 in the hands of the assessee. The learned CIT(A) deleted the said addition. 9. Having regard to the facts of the case, it is found that the only basis with the AO to make addition is the figure of investment by the assessee in the construction of the buildi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at Rs. 21,22,100 by applying CPWD rates and the investment shown by the assessee and other co-owners was at Rs. 18,34,685. The difference between the two figures is only 15.67 per cent which is less them 20 per cent as being allowed by the Jodhpur Bench of the Tribunal to scale down the valuation to State PWD rates in consonance with the view of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court. As regards the exclusion of the amount by the AO as not having been utilized for the purposes of construction in house, it is observed that the AO held it to be spent beyond the construction period. However, no basis for such exclusion has been given by the AO. We, therefore, uphold the impugned order on this count. 10. Last effective ground of the Revenue's....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., therefore, made addition, which was deleted in the first appeal. 12. We have heard both the sides and perused the relevant material on record. It is noticed that the said gifts received by the assessee were duly disclosed in the books of account for which regular returns was furnished. No material was found during the course of search, which could justify or even remotely suggest that the gifts were not genuine. Where the items are already declared in the return of income and duly assessed by the Revenue, the same cannot be taken as undisclosed income for the purposes of making block assessment. It has been so held in the case of CIT vs. Vikram A. Doshi (2002) 256 ITR 129 (Bom). In the context of additions made on account of unaccounte....