TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 1007
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce and proceed with the facts for AY 2003-04. 3. Assessee is an individual. An action u/s 132 of the Act was carried in the case of assessee on 15.10.2008. Thereafter notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued on 18.8.2009 pursuant to which assessee filed his return of income on 30.7.2010 showing total income of Rs. 40,000/-. Thereafter notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) was issued and subsequently the assessment was framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A(l)(b) of the Act and the total income was assessed at Rs. 6,46,500/- Aggrieved by the order of AO, the matter was carried before CIT(A) who vide order dated 31.01.2012 granted partial relief to the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), Assessee is now in appeal before us and has raised the following ground:- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs. 3,61,500/- on account of unexplained cash deposit in bank account, when no such addition is called for. The same may be deleted. The ground is with respect to addition on account of unexplained cash deposits in bank account 4. It was noticed by the AO that during the year Assessee had deposited cash in his bank account maintaine....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ale proceed of Rs. 2.45 lakhs received by the appellant on account of sale of his flat at Rohtak. Prima-facie the explanation of the appellant regarding the deposit of cash of Rs. 2.45 lakhs on 24/6/2002 appears to be correct. On the perusal of the sale deed, it is seen' that the sale deed is executed on 10/6/2002 and the cash of Rs. 245,000/- has been deposited on 24/6/2002.. Therefore, the cash deposit of Rs. 2,45,000/- made on 24/6/2002 is treated as explained as out of the sale proceeds of the flat at Rohtak. To this extent, the explanation of the appellant is acceptable to me. However, all other contentions of the appellant that the appellant was having cash balance of Rs. 4 lakh as on 1/4/2002 cannot be accepted to me in the absence of any supporting evidence. Similarly, the contention of the appellant that during the Asst. Year 2003-04 the appellant has sold household items for Rs. 3.,40 lakhs is not again acceptable to me in the absence of any supporting evidence. Similarly, the contention of the appellant that during the A.Y. 2007-08 the appellant received Rs. 3.40 lakhs after the death of his mother is again not acceptable in the absence of any supporting evidence. The ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s then in such a situation at the most the addition be made only of the peak amount. He pointed to the working of the peak amount for different years which was placed in the paper book. He further submitted that the additions of peak amount has also been accepted by the ld. CIT(A) and for which he pointed to the relevant finding of ld. CIT(A) for AY 2006-07 at page 15 of his order. He therefore submitted that the addition be deleted or at the most be restricted to the peak amount The Ld DR on the other hand supported the order of AO. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present ground is with respect to additions of unexplained cash in the bank account. Before us, Ld AR has tried to explain the source of deposits to be the withdrawals made from bank and in support of the contention the Ld AR has placed on record copy of the bank statement of account maintained with State Bank of India and Oriental Bank of Commerce and from he has also worked out the date-wise working of the peak credit of the cash deposited in his bank accounts. We also find that while deciding the appeal of the assessee for AY 2006-07, Ld CIT(A) has in princi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n adjudicated by us hereinabove, we now take up remaining 2 grounds. 2nd ground is with respect to addition of jewellery 9. During the course of search, 1113.50 gms of jewellery valued at Rs. 12,73,415 was found. A.O after considering the submissions of the Assessee and the Board Instruction No 1916 dated 11.5.1994, considered the jewellery to the extent of 200 gms to be as explained and made the addition of remaining jewellery of 913.50 gms valued at Rs. 10,44,692. Aggrieved by the order of AO, Assessee carried the matter before CIT(A) who granted partial relief to the assessee by holding as under:- 6. I have considered the submissions of the appellant. As contended by the AR that the appellant is staying with his wife Charu and son Garv. As per the Instructions No. 1916 of CBDT the credit of 500 gms. of jewellery should be allowed to a married lady and 100 gms. each in respect of male members in the family. Accordingly, 700 gms. of gold jewellery i.e. 500 gms. belonging to the wife of the appellant and 100 gms. each in respect of appellant and his son gets explained. This view has been upheld by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain, 235 CTR 56....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... valuing at Rs. 1,86,981/- remains unexplained. The AO is therefore, directed to reduce the addition on account of unexplained jewellery to Rs. 1,86,981/- against Rs. 10,44,692/-. 10. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), Assessee is now in appeal before us. Before us, Id AR reiterated the submissions made before AO and ld. CIT(A) and further submitted that in view of the CBDT instruction no 1916 dated 11.5.1994 since the 1113.50 gms of jewellery found was less than the prescribed limit of CBDT instructions (supra) no addition is called for. Ld D.R. on the other hand supported the order of AO. 11. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present case is with respect to addition made of jewellery found at the time of search. We find that Ld CIT(A) after considering the entire facts and the CBDT circular (supra) and by a well reasoned order had granted substantial relief to the assessee. Before us, ld. A.R. has not controverted the findings of ld. CIT(A) nor pointed any fallacy in the findings of ld. CIT(A) and therefore we find no reason to interfere with the order of ld. CIT(A) and thus dismiss the ground of Assessee. 3rd ground is ....