TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (8) TMI 362
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was carried on at the residence of the family of the assessee on 22.3.2006. The facts relevant to this appeal are brought out at para 7.1 of the order of the Ld.CIT(A) which is extracted for ready reference. "7.1. The facts in this regard as mentioned in the assessment order are that jewellery weighing 446.89 gms. valuing Rs. 10,82,074/- was found from the room of the appellant and jewellery weighing 185 gms valuing Rs. 1,49,000/- was found from the locker No.517 with Canara Bank. Thus in total 631.89 gms jewellery was found valuing Rs. 12,31,074/-. The A.O. noted that the jewellery appearing at S.No.7 and 8 in the valuation report was worth Rs. 4,25,080/-. No evidence/source of acquisition of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....upport of this contention either before the search party or before the A.O./ the Ld.CIT(A). No details of the occasions during which these items were received as gifts have been furnished. The Ld.CIT(A) on the ground that it was admitted that the jewellery was purchased from undisclosed sources, the addition was upheld. 4. Further aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. We have heard Shri A.K.Jain, the Ld.Counsel for the assessee and Shri Ravi Jain, the Ld.Sr.D.R. on behalf of the Revenue. 6. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that: (a) Search was carried out at the residence of the family of the assessee on 22nd March, 2006 and that there was no warrant in the name of the assessee. Nevertheless restraint order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (e). He further submitted that the addition in question was based only on the statement of Shri Abhay Gupta and the benefit of telescoping should be given as surrender was made to the tune of Rs. 3,50,000/-. 7. The Ld.D.R. on the other hand opposed the contentions of the assessee and submitted that there is no concept of limited warrant in the Income Tax Act. He submitted that search had taken place on 22.3.2006 and certain gold and jewellery was seized. He submitted that the assessee had signed the admission given by Shri Abhay Gupta. He further submitted that the assessee contended that the gold and jewellery was acquired by her by way of gifts on various occasions, but no evidence or details have been filed. He distinguished the cas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ech Ltd. order dated 29th September,2015 wherein it was held as under. "The question sought to be urged is whether the ITAT was correct in upholding the order of the CIT(A) that since the requisites of S.153 C of the Act were not satisfied and the assessment proceedings stood vitiated. 2. On 14th August, 2015 this Court passed an order in the present appeal, the relevant portion of which reads as under: "3. The point urged by the Revenue in this Appeal against the order dated 28th November, 2014 of the ITAT in ITA No. 20861 DEL/2013 pertaining to the Assessment Year ('AY') 2009-10 is that the Assessment itself was framed only under Section 143 (3) of the IT Act and therefore the ITAT was in error in proceeding on the basis that it ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-07, the assessment may have been framed u/s 153C of the Act, if it is an offshoot of the search at the residence of the family of the assessee on 22nd March, 2006. If it is presumed that the order was passed u/s 153C, then it has to be struck down on the ground that, the requisites of S.153C are not fulfilled. 13.2. Alternatively if it is presumed that the assessment passed u/s 153A of the Act, as a consequence to a search on the locker of the assessee on 10th April, 2006, the additions made in the assessment have to be deleted for the reason that, the same are not based on any incriminating material or assets seized during the search. We rely on the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla reported in 3....