TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (12) TMI 169
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee nor any petition seeking adjournment of the case was filed. Therefore, the case is being decided on the basis of material available on record and after hearing the Ld. Departmental Representative. 3. The only ground raised by the assessee reads as under : "1. The Learned CIT(A), Kolhapur, erred in law and on facts in confirming the additions made by the Learned AO on account of unexplained gold jewellery and silver articles without appreciating the fact such as wealth tax return, VDIS disclosure, streedhan, CBDT Circular, gift on marriage application and inherited articles." 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and has filed his return of income on 16-03-2013 declaring total income of Rs. 1,48,6....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xplanation given by the assessee. According to him, the assessee has not placed on record any evidence to prove that the jewellery has been received as gift. Since out of the total gold of 1962.050 gms assessee's explanation regarding the balance of gold has already been accepted further benefit cannot be given in respect of 500 gms of gold jewellery. On similar reasoning since total silver found was 21.447 kgs and declaration was only in respect of 10 kgs, therefore, the AO noted that sufficient credit has already been given in respect of balance silver. Thus, the AO added the value of 500 gms of gold and 10 kgs of silver as income applied to unexplained investment. 7. Before CIT(A) it was contended that the AO has failed to appreciate ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....IS. In brief, there was no evidence in support of any of the claim of the assessee. At the time of search and seizure operation assessee was conscious of this fact, that is why he declared 500 gms. of jewellery as undisclosed. As per Board circular no. 1916 dated 11/05/1994, 500 gms. Of jewellery in respect of a married lady member and 250 gms. in respect of unmarried lady member may not be seized during search operation. However this does not mean that the respective quantity should be treated as explained. Thus, the thumb rule prescribed vide this circular to avoid unnecessary seizure and harassment to the assessee cannot be taken as instruction to treat the quantity as explained. The circular also talks of due credit to be given to the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r were declared in the wealth tax return, 10 kgs of silver were gifted by mother-in-law and 10kgs has been declared in the course of the search. We find the AO rejected the above contention of the assessee on the ground that there is nothing on record or no evidence was produced by the assessee to show as to whether the same items which have been found in search were declared under VDIS scheme. He however has restricted the addition to 500 gms of gold ornaments and 10 kgs of silver which according to him remained unexplained. We find the Ld.CIT(A) upheld the action of the AO on the ground that assessee could not produce any evidence in support of any of the claim made by him. The reason given by the CIT(A) while sustaining the addition made....