TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (12) TMI 1663
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessee raised the following grounds of appeal; "1. The learned AO had erred in making an addition of Rs. 83,73,748/- by holding 4226.58 grams of gold jewellery as unexplained and the ld.CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the above addition except in respect of gold jewellery of about 900 grams. 2, On proper appreciation of facts and data available it will be clear that on submissions as made by assessee, there is no excess gold jewellery and the addition as made/sustained are to be deleted in entirety. 3. In any case without prejudice the value as adopted for making/sustaining the addition is excessive. 4. The assessee denies liability to pay interest. The interest having been levied erroneously is to be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....61 (net) In the room of Mangalchand (residence of Susheel Kumar) 3 Gold jewellery to the tune of 263.21 grams In the bank locker of SBM (residence of Susheel Kumar) 4 Gold jewellery to the tune of 451.88grams (net) The assessee was called upon to explain the source of jewellery during the course of search operation. In the statement recorded u/s 132(4) dated 1203-2012, he was questioned on the sources for the gold found. The same is reproduced below; "Q.No.17 During the course of search action u/s 132 at your residence certain jelwellery was found and the same was inventorised as 4/SKB, as per which the total jewellery is weighing a gross weight of 5094.24 gms, the net weight of 4226.57 gms. The diamo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the AO held as follows; "The above submission made by the assessee is not acceptable as the assesee himself stated they belong to Marwadi business family and there is a tradition in family to get gold and silver items on various festive occasions. Therefore, it is onus on the assessee to keep the entire receipts accounted and be able to explain the same whenever required. But on the hand, simply taking plea that he belongs to Marwadi business family where there is practice of giving and taking gifts s not acceptable". The second submission placed by the assesee is CBDT Circular No.1916 dated 11-05-1994 provides non-seizure of jewellery which would generally be held by the family members. The instruction is reproduced below; ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2012-2013 was filed on 1007-2013, much after the date of search operation and therefore, the AO came to the conclusion that the assesee had failed to furnish evidence in support of gold found of 4226.58 grams , after deducting the additional income declared at Rs. 25,90,000/-, a sum of Rs. 83,73,748/- was added to the total income. 5. Being aggrieved by this assessment order, an appeal was filed before the learned CIT(A)-11, Bangalore, who vide impugned order partly allowed the appeal. While doing so, the learned CIT(A) directed the AO to allow credit in respect of 990 grams in the hands of assessee's wife as the wealth tax return was filed on 08-12-1997 and deduction in terms of CBDT instruction in respect of each family members was tu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h and seizure operations. The explanation offered by the assessee both during the course of search & seizure operations as well as the assessment proceedings was that out of 4226.58 grams value of 1036.58 grams was offered to tax as unexplained and 1800 grams was claimed to have received from the relatives as gift on various occasions and 1390 grams of jewellery was claimed to have been declared by his wife Smt.Saritha Bai, in her wealth tax return. Out of which only 990 grams was treated as explained by the CIT(A) it was declared in her wealth tax return filed in the year 1997 before the date of search and the balance was treated as unexplained. The explanation offered by the assessee is that if the credit is given for 500 grams for each f....