2004 (5) TMI 585

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d worked out to 2,846 gms. As per the assessee, part of jewellery belonging to her daughters-in-law, Smt. Sunita and Urmil Batra, was also included in the jewellery recorded in the 'Panchnamas'. The entire jewellery except for jewellery of value of Rs. 1,66,348 has been held to be explained. This way a sum of Rs. 1,66,348 has been added in the income of the assessee from undisclosed sources in the assessment year under appeal. The assessment was confirmed on appeal by the learned CIT(A). It is seen that while confirming the assessment, the Revenue authorities have relied upon orders passed under sections 132(5) and 132(1) of the IT Act. 3. I have heard both the parties. The assessee is wife of Shri Chaman Lal Batra, proprietor of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....owever, instead of considering aforesaid latest return or valuation report, the AO wrongly considered valuation report for assessment year 1978-79 and thus did not give benefit of item disclosed which had slight variation in the description. The Revenue authorities should have given benefit of weight of jewellery disclosed while determining the jewellery possessed by the assessee and her family members. The learned counsel for the assessee further explained that the assessee had 2,888.8 gms. gross and 2779.300 gms. net weight of jewellery as per her return. The jewellery found at the time of search was much less as per the following details : Gross weight (in gms.) Net weight (in gms.) 1483.000 1428.100 1238.800 1214.400 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....essment year 1984-85 in the return of wealth submitted before the date of search, was not allowed. Likewise limited benefit has been allowed to other family members and not as claimed by them. 6. It is further clear from record that jewellery of value of Rs. 13,89,530 was found from the premises subjected to search. It has been admitted by the Revenue that above jewellery belonged not only to the assessee but to her daughters-in-law and her unmarried daughter. Jewellery of value of more than Rs. 12 lakhs has been accepted as explained. The addition in dispute has been made on account of slight variation in description of jewellery disclosed in the reports filed with the return and reports of the Departmental valuers prepared at the time ....