2010 (10) TMI 74

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f Rs. 77.38 lakhs. The dispute is in respect of balance jewellery of Rs. 8,06,035/-. In respect of this jewellery, specific questions were put to the appellant during the search. Questions No.36 and 37 put to the appellant are relevant in this context and are reproduced below:- "Q.36 Jewellery valued at Rs. 8,06,035/- was found from the G.F. living room. Can you explain the source of this jewellery. Ans. This jewellery was picked up on approval from K.K. as per card given - was to be returned. Q.37 What is the complete name and address of this person. Ans. The name is K.K. Jewellers, G-23, South Extension Part-I, N. Delhi." 2. It is clear from the above that explanation of the appellant was that this jewellery was taken from M/s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t, he stated that he was partner both of K.K. Jewellers as well as M/s. Kesri Chand & Co. and that he knew the appellant. Thereafter, a question was put to him regarding supply of the jewellery by M/s. K.K. Jewellers. The said question and the answer given by him are reproduced hereunder:- "Q.6 It has been claimed by Ms. R. Dhawar during the course of search u/s 132 of I.T. Act which took place on 2.11.2004 that jewellery valued at Rs. 8,06,035/- found with her was received by her on approval basis from M/s. K.K. Jewellers. Please confirm. A. I confirm that no such jewellery was given by K.K. Jewellers to Ms. Rooby Dhawar on approval basis, however it is submitted that some jewellery was given on approval basis to Rooby Dhawar through....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ner of M/s. Kesri Chand & Co. as well. Even if he had stated that no jewellery was supplied to the appellant and it is inferred therefrom that he was referring to K.K. Jewellers, he could have very well stated that jewellery was supplied on approval basis by M/s. Kesri Chand & Co. Be that as it may, the onus to show that jewellery was in fact supplied by M/s. Kesri Chand & Co. was on the appellant having regard to the provisions of Section 132(4A) read with the provisions of Section 292C of the Act. The appellant did not come forward with any such explanation and became wiser only after the second statement of the Kailash Chand Jain was recorded on 11th December, 2006. Otherwise, from the date of the search, i.e., 2nd November, 2004, till 2....