TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (12) TMI 52
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urn for a.y.2002-03 has a point" erred in dismissing it as 'not deserved to be considered at this stage." 4) The CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that the jewellery belonging to several members of the appellant's brother's families also got mixed up with that of the appellant which position is evident from the fact that in the case of one of the brothers (Sri Ramprasad alias Mahavir Prasad) deficit jewellery was found than what was admitted in his wealth tax returns filed. 2. The revenue raised the following grounds:- i) The CIT (A) erred in relying in the assessee's information which is not in possession of the Assessing Officer. ii) The CIT (A) erred in not giving opportunity to the Assessing Officer when he admitted additional information relating to the other family members of the assessee." 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee derives income from house property, business and other sours and search and seizure operations were conducted in this case on 29-1-2009 along with Sunder Group of cases. For the year under consideration, the assessee filed the return of income on 22-7-2009 declaring total income at Rs. 8,09,630/- including agricultural income ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssment year 2001/02, the value shave been taken on estimation basis and no quantitative details were indicated. The Assessing Officer also rejected the submission of the appellant that the jewellery of the entire group got mixed up during valuation and based on valuation without reference to the quantities, the total value of the jewellery of the group would be Rs. 13,06,80,- 312, as against Rs. 11,32,77,199 as quantified by the valuer. The Assessing Officer also did not accept the theory of the appellant that different family members received gifts on various occasions and the same were offered as income in the respective hands, holding that the same would have been declared in the wealth tax returns. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer determined the excess jewellery in the hands of Sri Laxminandan at Rs. 3,02,97,302/- treating it as the unexplained investment. 6. The assessee objected to the above addition before the CIT (A). The assessee has given a detailed note on the family history of the group consisting of the families of Sri Krishna Kumar, Sri Mahavir Prashad alias Ramprakash and Sri Laxminandan. As per the appellant, the jewellery of the three families got mixed up as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lue of the jewellery exceeds the value as determined by the registered valuer. The appellant also explained the differences arrived in values as per valuation report as on the date of search as compared to the date of 31.03.08, which is the basis for assessing the excess value to tax. Regarding the difference in valuation on account of rates as on 31.3.2008 (Rs.12,125 per 10 grams) and 29.1.2009 (Rs.13,900 per 10 grams), it was pointed out that the difference would be Rs. 39,63,945/-, being the difference between the amounts of Rs. 2,70, 77 ,656/- i.e. the value of the jewellery shown in the wealth tax returns of the entire family of Laxminandan, as on 31.03.08 and Rs. 3,14,028/- i.e. the value of the jewellery as on 29.0.09 i.e. the date of valuation/search (@ Rs. 3900/- per 10gms), which was the taken as the basis by the AD in his assessment order. As far as the quantification of excess jewellery by the Assessing Officer with reference to the jewellery declared in wealth tax returns is concerned, it was contended by the appellant that jewellery to the tune of Rs. 90,01,432/- standing in the name of Sri Laxminandan (HUF), Rs. 61, 75, 700/- standing in the name of Smt. Taradevi and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bers and accordingly brought the entire amount to tax treating it as the income of Sri Laxminandan. As could be seen from the valuation report dated 29.01.2009, the jewellery of the family of Sri Laxminandan was quantified at Rs. 17,30,073/-, which include the value of precious stones to the extent of Rs. 3,32,58,600/- and silverware valued at Rs. 24,09,580/-. While arriving at the figure of Rs. 3,02,97,302/- which was treated as unexplained investment in jewellery, the Assessing Officer has compared the value of the jewellery at Rs. 17,30,073/-, as per the valuation report dated 29.01.2009 as against the value of the jewellery as indicated in the wealth tax returns as on 31.3.2008 taken at Rs. 1,14,32,771/- standing in the names of Sri Laxminandan (Indl), Sri Sunil Kumar and Ms. Richa. However, while computing the excess jewellery, the A.O. has not considered the value of the jewellery declared in the wealth tax returns of Sri. Laxminandan (HUF), Smt. Taradevi and Ms. Namrata to the extent of Rs. 90,01,432/-,. Rs. 61,75,700/- and Rs. 4,67,753/- respectively, and if the same are included, the total of the value of jewellery would be Rs. 2,76,47,656/-. The argument of the appellant ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of precious stones which is mostly by estimation unlike the standardized procedure in the case of gold jewellery, the appellate deserve the rebate, keeping the very higher percentage of the precious stones (79.69%), embedded into jewellery and as such the excess value as arrived above deserved to be reduced and restricted to a part of the excess value, the CIT (A) placed reliance on the discussion in the case of Sri. Krishna Kumar, in ITA No.1571/DC-CC4/CIT(A)-VII/2010-11, dated 9.03.2012. He has given direction that the excess value as determined also deserves to be set off with the claim of the appellant, as made out in the grounds of appeal that entire jewellery of the family is considered for addition in the hands of one person. Accordingly, the excess jewellery as determined/quantified at Rs. 1,01,18,472/- deserve to be reduced to 50% i.e. Rs. 50,59,236/- on the lines of the discussion in the order, and the disallowance is ordered to be restricted to Rs. 50,59,236/- (Rs.1,01,18,472 - 50,59,236), while giving effect to this appellate order. Thus, the excess jewellery in the hands of Sri Laxmmandan stands quantified and confirmed at Rs. 50,59,236/-as against Rs. 3,02,9....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to 27955.515 grams and if the value as on 29-1-2008 of Rs. 4,41,39,653/- is converted into quantity it works out to a lesser quantity. Thus, the excess in assessees hands is on account of the above factors, ie., (a) that the jewellery of all the members was pooled together and inventoried on the date of search; and (b) also on account of guess work involved in estimation of precious stones. Coming to the first ground taken by the Department to the effect that, "CIT (A) relied on assessee's information which is not in possession of the Assessing Officer" is factually incorrect. The information relied upon by the CIT (A) is from the wealth tax returns of the members filed with the Assessing Officer. The details of filing of wealth tax returns are as under: Sl No Name of the Family Member/assessee Filing of W.T Returns for Asst Year - 2002-03 Filing of W.T Returns for Asst Year 2008-09 Date Value of jewellery admitted Date Value of jewellery admitted 1 Lakshminandan 13-10-2002 13,75,266 30-10-2008 23,20,817 2 Lakshminandan 25-06-2002 41,26,100 31-07-2008 90,01,432 3 Tara Devi 30-10-2002 32,89,578 30-0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he decision of Allahabad High court in the case of CIT vs. Raghuraji Agro Industries Pvt. Limited (349 ITR 260) wherein at pages 263-264 the Hon'ble High Court as under:- "Needless to mention that the power of the first appellate authority is co terminus with the powers of the Assessing Officer as far as examining the evidence is concerned. The appellate authority has all the powers which original authority has, subject to conditions/restrictions, if any, prescribed by laws as per the ratio laid down in the following cases:- i) Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. CIT (1991) 187 ITR 688 (SC) and ii) CIT vs. Nirbheram Daluram (1997) 224 ITR 610 (SC) So the plea of the appellant's counsel that explanation given before the CIT (A) was not given before the Assessing Officer, is not sustainable. In view of the above, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal and the same is hereby sustained. The answer to the question is in the affirmative, i.e., against the revenue and in favour of the assessee." 15. The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, strongly relied upon the order of the assessing officer. 16. We have....