2014 (3) TMI 526

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tely disclosed jewellery pertaining to the in-large family in his wife's locker in his wife's locker in the preliminary statement recorded by ADI." 3. Brief facts of the case are that a search u/s. 132 of the Act was carried out in the case of the brother of the assessee with whom assessee was residing wherein cash of Rs. 94,000/- was found. Gold jewellery weighing 786.6 gms and 4 kg of silver was also found but not seized. AO completed the assessment u/s. 188BD r.w.s. 18BC of the Act. On appeal Ld. CIT(A) granted relief of Rs. 47,000/- in respect of unexplained cash and of Rs. 3,016,57/- in respect of unexplained jewellery. The jewellery of 175.2 gms was treated as unexplained by the Ld. CIT(A). Against this order of Ld. CIT(A) as....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....was also inventorised by the departmental valuer / search team as "claimed to belonging to Manojkumar Jnumarmal" at Sr No 11 & 12 of the inventory of the jewellery prepared en 8-1- 2002. Shri Monojkumar Jhumarmal is brother in law of the appellant. The jewellery was stated to be belonging to his mother and his wife. While dealing this issue the CIT(A) in his order dated 30-4-08 has held as under :- "However, as regards to gold jewellery claimed to be of Smt Ratnidevi Surana of 175.2 gms, different versions have been given of different stages i.e. in search, it was claimed to be belonging to Manojkumar (brother in law), during assessment, it was claimed to be belonging to Smt Ratnidevr ( mother in law). During appeal, it was stated to be fo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n the case of ACIT vs. Shanti Bai Yadav vide ITA Nos. 21 & 22 (JP) of 2009 dated 14th July, 2011 of Jaipur Bench and in the case of Sakalchand C. Patel vs. ACIT vide IT(SS)A No. 641/Ahd/2010 dated 31st December 2012 of Ahmedabad Bench. Ld. DR on the other hand relied on the orders of lower authorities and also placed reliance on the case of Meenaben J. Bhansali vs. ACIT IT(SS)A vide ITA No. 55/Ahd/2009 dated 23-11-2012 wherein Hon'ble ITAT on similar facts following the jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of CIT vs Becharbhai P. Parmar 341 ITR 499 has confirmed the penalty u/s. 158BFA(2). 7. After hearing both the parties and perusing the record we find that there is no dispute about the fact that penalty u/s. 158BFA(2) has ....