TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (7) TMI 1031
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eleting the addition of Rs. 1,08,000/- made on account of house hold expenses. 2. Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the CIT(Appeal) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 10,33,397/- out of total addition of Rs. 30,35,537/- made on account of unexplained cash and jewellery found at the premises of the assessee." 3. Brief facts of the case are that search operation under Section 132 of the I.T. Act was carried out on 28.03.2008. During the assessment proceedings, the A.O. noticed that the share of withdrawal for the house hold expenses in the family was Rs. 12,000/- only. The A.O. estimated household expenses to the extent of Rs. 1,20,000/-, therefore, he has made the addition of Rs. 1,08,000/-. The CIT(A)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....estimated addition of Rs. 1,08,000/- made on account of household expenses is, hereby, deleted. Same view has been held by me in case of the appellant in her appeals for earlier years where similar addition has been made by the AO on same grounds." 4. We have heard Ld. Representatives of the parties and records perused. We find that on identical set of facts addition has been deleted by the CIT(A) in A.Y. 2006-07 and that order of the CIT(A) has been confirmed in ITA No.344/Agra/2011 in the case of ACIT Vs. Smt. Julie Gupta order even dated. The relevant findings is reproduced as below :- "At the outset, the ld. Authorised Representative submitted that this issue is squarely covered by the order of I.T.A.T., Agra Bench in ITA No....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rightly deleted the addition of Rs. 1,08,000/- 6. The second ground is in respect of deletion of addition of Rs. 10,33,397/- by the CIT(A) out of total addition of Rs. 30,35,537/- made by the A.O. The A.O. made following addition as the assessee has failed to explain in respect of jewellery, cash etc. found at the residence. (A.O. Page No.3) 1. Cash found at residence Rs.7,02,140/- 2. Jewellery and Miscll. Surrendered (Locker no.70 at ICICI Bank) Rs.8,00,000/- 3. Stamp Duty surrendered for land At Sirole Rs.5,00,000/- 4. Jewellery & Silver items found At residence Rs.10,15,397/- Rs.30,35,537/- 7. The CIT(A) has reduced the addition to the extent of Rs. 20,02,140/- as under :- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rthday, anniversary and other festivals. These gifts are customary and customs prevailing in a society cannot be ignored. The explanation given by the appellant is found acceptable depending upon the standard of the family and customs prevailing in Hindu society. Thus the AO is not found justified in treating the jewellery as unexplained since the same is covered by the surrender made by the appellant and explanation submitted. Thus the addition of Rs. 30,35,537/- is reduced to Rs. 20,02,140/- which includes surrender of Rs. 20,00,000/- and addition of Rs. 2,140/- on account of cash." 8. The ld. Authorized Representative tried to demonstrate that the assessee has surrendered amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- against the jewellery of Rs. 10,15,397....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rs.10,15,397/- iii Jewellery found in locker no.70 at ICICI Bank Rs.7,88,075/- The assessee was asked to explain the nature and source of the above cash, jewellery and silver items found in respect of the jewellery and silver items found at residence neither any explanation to prove nature and source have been given nor any documentary evidence to explaining the source of it submitted. On the examination of record it has been found that the assessee has surrendered only the following but has not declared the same in her return of income:- 1. Cash surrendered Rs.7,00,000/- 2. Jewellery and Miscll. Surrendered (Locker no.70 at ICICI Bank) Rs.8,00,000/- 3. Stamp Duty surrendered for land At Sirole ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ely on the fact that jewellery has shown in the Wealth Tax return the addition under Income Tax Act cannot be deleted unless the source of the jewellery is explained by the assessee. We noticed that the finding of the CIT(A) is without appreciating the case made by the A.O. and without recording the relevant facts and finding on the reconciliation filed by the assessee. The benefit of CBDT Circular in the names of different members is also subject to verification. We find that the finding of the CIT(A) is without considering all the relevant facts and reconciliation filed by the assessee. In the light of these facts, we think it proper to send back this issue to the file of the CIT(A) with direction to re-decide the issue afresh in accordan....