2011 (7) TMI 142

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... (ii) Whether the Ld. ITAT erred in wrongly upholding the addition of the entire 506.9 grams of jewellery pertained to AY 1996-97 without appreciating that the said jewellery was acquired at the time of marriage over a period of time?" Filing of paper books is dispensed with as the learned counsel for the parties are prepared to finally argue the matter. We have heard arguments of both the parties at length and now proceed to answer the questions formulated above. Before that, however, it would be necessary to take note of the relevant facts.   2. A search and seizure operation under Section 132 (1) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was conducted in the case of Dilbagh Rai Group on 1st September, 200....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....) are affirmed by the ITAT as well. In this appeal preferred by the assessee against the impugned orders dated 17th September, 2010, we are concerned with these two additions only. It may also be mentioned that at the time of arguments the learned counsel for the appellant did not press about the addition of Rs.50,000/- on account of receipt of Rs. 50,000/- at Tivoli Garden. For this reason, the questions of law which are formulated pertain to addition of Rs. 3,87,364/- on account of jewellery. As far as addition qua jewellery is concerned, during the course of search, jewellery weighing 906.900 grams of the value amounting to Rs. 6,93,582/- was found. The appellant's explanation was that he was married about 25 years back and the jewellery....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... as well as other authorities was that as the department had conducted a search of all the financial dealings which were within his knowledge and no paper or document was found to indicate that this jewellery belonged to the appellant and that it was undisclosed income of the assessment year 2006-2007. In a search operation, no scope is left with the tax department to make addition on subjective guess work, conjectures and surmises. It was also argued that jewellery is "stree dhan" of the assessee's wife, evidenced in the form of declaration which was furnished by mother-in-law of the assessee stating that she had given the jewellery in question to her daughter. She argued that it is a normal custom for a woman to receive jewellery in the f....