TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (7) TMI 419
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ewellery weighing 21456.550 grams was seized by the Department. As per ld. Assessing Officer assessee had submitted evidence for 4437 grams out of these and the balance of 16619.550 grams was accepted as undisclosed income in a statement recorded at the time of search. However, in return of income filed assessee had disclosed only 924.78 grams. As per assessee the balance represented gold jewellery deposited by family members and persons who were related to its business. Gold jewellery claimed by the assessee as belonging to its family members/relatives and parties related to its business were as under:- Sl.No Name Weight in Grams 1 Smt. Bhagwanti Jain 2416 2 S.A. Dilip Kumar 1798 3 Smt. Anjana Bai 1750 4 Mrs. Kanchana Bai 1635 5 M/s. Gouthamchand & Sons 1060 6 N. Amarchand 1050 7 M/s. Dilipkumar & Sons 850 8 M/s. Amarchand HUF 750 9 Shruti 730 10 Manisha 680 11 Nitin Kumar 675 12 Praful Kumar 660 13 Sankesh 610 14 Smt. Lalita Bai 450 15 Gouthamchand Surana 388 16 N. Jegadesh 250 17 R.I. Deva 176 18 G. Sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 91.6% purity was only 18,302.79 grams. As per assessee, ld. Assessing Officer while accepting 5,271.00 grams of gold jewellery as explained, failed to consider affidavits, Wealth Tax Returns and VDIS declaration of very same relatives who had affirmed depositing gold jewellery totaling 15502 grams with the assessee. Further, as per assessee gold jewellery given by goldsmith which were relating to its business, came to 1042 grams and this was also supported by affidavits from concerned persons. Contention of the assessee was that ld. Assessing Officer had relied on gold deposit agreements found at the time of search, aggregating 4437 grams ignoring the availability of gold jewellery received from very same family members which were reflected in respective VDIS declaration/Wealth Tax returns. Thus, as per assessee a part of the source was accepted whereas other part was rejected. As per assessee this was not a logical approach. Assessee in its submission before ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) categorized the gold jewellery deposits received from its family members and others and explained the difference in gold jewellery as under:- "Undisclosed investment - 21,456.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssioner of Income Tax (Appeals), it could not be believed that women who had emotional attachment towards their jewellery handed over such jewellery to the assessee. He thus, rejected the contention of the assessee and confirmed the addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer. 6. Now before us, the ld. Authorised Representative strongly assailing the orders of the lower authorities submitted that jewellery weighing of 15502 grams received from relatives/family member and 1042 grams received from its business associates who were gold smiths were supported by respective affidavits. As per the ld. Authorised Representative these were ignored and rejected without any reasons. Contention as per ld. Authorised Representative was that out of the gold deposits claimed by the assessee from its fifteen family members aggregating 15502 grams, ld. Assessing Officer partly accepted 4437 grams and rejected the balance despite their jewellery holding being reflected in their respective VDIS/ Wealth Tax returns filed, well prior to the search. As per ld. Authorised Representative affidavits filed by these persons were rejected without any verification. According to him, lower authorities placed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....affidavits received from respective relatives. Details of the claim of gold deposits from relatives and the extent to which it was accepted and extent to which it was supported by the Wealth Tax and VDIS returns of respective persons were as under:- Sl. No Name of family members PAN Total Gold Gold deposit accepted by Assessing Officer Gold reflected in VDIS Gold Deposit reflected in WT Return 1 Mrs. Kanchana Bai AACPB6980G 1635 450 1650 2 Nitin Kumar ACRPN9209M 675 250 675 3 Sankesh ARYPS8168C 610 200 610 4 S.A. Dilip Kumar ADPPD8896D 1798 1749 1257 541 5 N. Amarchand AABPA8645G 1050 350 970 80 6 Smt. Anjana Bai AAFPD4331A 1750 1000 1784 7 M/s. Amarchand HUF AACHA2068N 750 438 750 8 M/s. Dilip & Sons HUF AADHD6701N 850 1184 9 Smt. Bhagwanti Jain AEYPJ4322A 2416 1505 912 10 Praful Kumar AITPP1771G 660 660 11 Shruti ARYPS3028H 730 730 12 Manisha ....