TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (7) TMI 1052
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee in this appeal has challenged the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the AO) as unexplained investments in relation to jewellery found during the course of search action. 3. The facts in brief are that a search action u/s 132 of the I.T. Act was carried out in the case of Acme Group Companies and related persons. The assessee was also covered in the said search action. The assessee is a partner in various firms engaged in business of builder and developer. During the course of the search operation, total jewellery valued at Rs. 17330641/- was found from the premises of the assessee, out of which jewellery valued at Rs. 36,93,026/- was seized. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the AO asked the assessee to show cause why jewellery to the extent which has not been reflected in the return of income should not be treated as unexplained and added to the income of the assessee. 4. The assessee explained the source of the jewellery and made his submissions vide letter dated 4.10.2010 and further vide letter dated 8.11.2010. He further submitted that looking to the status of family and the cus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the total weight of jewellery found matched with the jewellery accounted by the Doshi family. The assessee further submitted that in case of some jewellery, the description did not match either due to absence of full description of the jewellery made by the Departmental Valuer during search action or due to the remaking of the jewellery from the old jewellery items. It was submitted that even in respect of Diamond Jewellery, the overall carat weight of diamonds approximately matched with that was already accounted by assessee's family members. It was therefore submitted that the additions under section 69A were not warranted in this case. 6. The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the submissions of the assessee observed that it was correct that the overall weight of the gold jewellery declared by the assessee and his family in the books of accounts was in excess of gold jewellery found during the course of search action, however, the department had to match each and every item found with the items declared in the valuation reports of the Approved Valuers as furnished by the assessee and that the onus was on the assessee to prove the source of acquisition of each and every item of jewe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant with chain'. The number of pieces of diamond in the said pendant has been mentioned as 59. The assessee has stated that it matched with item at serial no. 9 of the valuer's report wherein the description has been mentioned as 'Double String Black Beads Mangalsutra with Pendant' wherein the total number of diamonds is also mentioned as 59. However, the carat weight mentioned by the Departmental Valuer is 0.88, whereas, in the assessee's valuation report, it has been mentioned as 118. However, the gold gross weight mentioned by the Departmental Valuer is 21.850 whereas in the valuation report produced by the assessee it has been mentioned as 20.3. Similarly, in respect of item No.19 i.e. 'Bangles with Rodium' the gold gross weight also matched and the pieces of diamonds mentioned also matched. However, the estsimation of carat value by the government valuer is at 1.68 whereas as mentioned in the valuation report of the assessee is at 2.75. Similarly, in respect of item No.21 'Eartopes' gold gross weight also matches and number of pieces of diamond also matches. However, there is a small difference in carat weight of diamonds. The Ld. A.R. of the assessee has invited our attentio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d, especially when evidence was available that the assessee had already been assessed at much more jewellery in earlier assessment year. Further, in the case of "Mrs. Vinita S. Jhunjhunwala vs. ACIT" in ITA No.8837/M/2010 for A.Y. 2008-09 decided on 20.01.2014, the co-ordinate Mumbai bench of the Tribunal has concluded that when quantity of jewellery disclosed by the assessee is same as the quantity of jewellery found during the course of search, no addition is warranted merely because the description is not matching. It is a vital fact that ladies get jewellery converted as per latest design and for which even the concerned man in the family is being not informed. In these circumstances merely because of conversion of such jewellery, cannot be made basis for making addition, when the jewellery disclosed by the assessee either in his own hand or in the hands of their family members prior to the date of search is equal to or more than the jewellery found during the course of search. In the case of "Rakesh J. Parikh v. DCIT" in IT(SS)A No.136/M/2000 for Block period 01.04.1987 to 25.09.1997 decided vide order dated 26.02.2004, the coordinate bench of the Tribunal has observed that me....