TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (1) TMI 508
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of income on 22.5.2013 admitting an income of Rs. 1,43,50,040/-. The Assessing officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A on a total income of Rs. 1,52,67,615/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 9,17,575/-. According to the Assessing officer, during the course of search and seizure operations, gold jewellery of the value of Rs. 44,21,500/- was found. The assessee during the course of search accepted an additional amount of Rs. 25 lakhs. However, at the time of filing the return of income only an amount of Rs. 15,83,425/- was offered. With regard to the balance of the amount, the assessee submitted that 340 grams of gold jewellery was purchased at Madras and the payment was made through cheque. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....acts for the relevant period. He observed that the Assessing Officer had no occasion to dispute the year of assessability and the undisclosed investment in jewellery was assessed in the A.Y. 2011-12, as offered. The only dispute was regarding the evidentiary support for the assessee's claim that gold jewellery valued at Rs. 9,16,575/- was purchased during May, 2011. Having been able to identify the payment for the purchase from out of her accounted sources, the assessee contends that this of item of jewellery cannot be seen as an unaccounted investment. He observed that the difference between the amount originally disclosed and amount now offered in the return of income, therefore, should not be seen as an unfounded and opportunistic re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h, there can be no presumption that the payment is in respect of an item which has been found and inventorised in the course of the search. This correlation is essential because the determination of undisclosed investment in jewellery is found on an analysis of items found during the search. 5.2 In view of the above observations, the CIT(A) held that the above referred cheque payment therefore, neither supports an exclusion of the impugned amount from the admitted undisclosed investment of Rs. 25 lakhs for A.Y. 2011-12, nor from Rs. 44,21,500/- which in any case is only an aggregate value of jewellery found, inclusive of accounted items. He therefore confirmed the action of the AO in making the addition of Rs. 9,17,575/-. 6. Aggrieved by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of payment is 07/05/2011, which fell in the AY 2012-13 whereas the issue is relating to AY 2011-12. He submitted that this is nothing but retraction of declaration made during the search. 9. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the record. At the outset, it may be noticed that the assessee is engaged in the business of imparting education through coaching and admitted substantial income pursuant to search and seizure operations conducted at the residential premises of the assessee on 03.08.2011. In fact, gold jewellery and silver articles of the value of Rs. 44,21,500 were found during the course of search and the assessee did not furnish detailed description of any of the gold jewellery. Having agreed to offer ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fter one and half month i.e., on 19.09.2011, the assessee could have informed the A.O. about the factum of purchase of a specified jewellery but no such statement was given; rather the assessee offered to tax a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs. 9.2 Even if it is assumed that the assessee was under pressure during the course of search proceedings and thereafter, atleast within a short span thereafter the assessee could have brought all the details before the A.O. indicating the nature of gold purchased, description thereof, so that the A.O. could have compared the jewellery seized - and mentioned in the panchanama - with the jewellery which is said to have been purchased in the month of May, 2011. Neither before the A.O. nor before the Commissioner the ....