TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (10) TMI 170
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....R. 3. At the first instance, we will deal with the appeal in ITA No. 7039/Del/2014 relating to Smt. Poonam Gupta. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal: "1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law and nature: 1.1 Because the Ld. CIT(A) has not given any opportunity while enhancing the jewellery to the extent of 461.046 grams which the Ld AO, at the time of assessment, held to be genuinely purchased and the enhancement has been made in contravention of section 251(2) of the Income Tax Act 1961.Thereby enhancing the assessment by Rs. 9,26,702/- is illegal. 1.2 Because the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts by denying the purchase bills as genuine of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned with Axis Bank, Sector-16, Noida, jewellery valuing Rs. 50,31,008/- was found out of which the jewellery worth Rs. 29,68,072/- was seized. The details of jewellery found and seized were as under: Description Residence A-16, Sector-26, Noida Locker at J&K Bank, Sec. 18, Noida Locker at Axis Bank, Sec. 16, Noida Total Jewellery found Rs.13,33,748/- (363.400 gms) Rs.30,31,789/- (20 items), 1140.900 gms Rs.6,65,471/- (8 items), 329.100 gms Rs.50,31,008/- Jewellery seized Nil Rs.23,02,601/- Rs.6,65,471/- Rs.29,68,072/- 6. The explanation of the assessee was that the jewellery was received on the occasion of marriage and other various occasions from relatives, parent and purchases made by her fr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....461.046 grams. In the circumstances, Jewellery to the extent of 461.046 grams which by adopting the valuation rate on the date of search taken @ Rs. 2010/- per gram by the government approved valuer comes to Rs. 9,26,702/- -is considered as explained. Remaining jewellery valuing Rs. 41,04,306/- out of total jewellery of Rs, 50,31,008/- is treated as unexplained investment u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act and is added to the total income of the assessee. Addition of Rs. 41,04,306/-" 7. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) and submitted as under: "(i) The jewellery found was received by the appellant, being a married lady at the time of marriage, birth of her two sons. The assessing officer has not given ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arried lady and 100 gm for male members should not be seized, but he considered jewellery purchased valuing Rs. 9,26,702/- as part of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 16,08,000/-. In other words, the ld. CIT(A) included the jewellery valuing Rs. 9,26,702/- which was purchased by the assessee and the AO considered the same as explained. 9. Now the assessee is in appeal. The ld. DR supported the order passed by the AO and reiterated the observation made in the assessment order dated 18.03.2013. Nobody was present on behalf of the assessee. 10. We have considered the submissions of the ld. DR and carefully gone through the material available on the record. In the present case, it appears that the ld. CIT(A) added the jewellery valuing Rs. 9,2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....through the material available on the record. In our opinion, the ld. CIT(A) without appreciating the facts in right perspective, sustained the addition, particularly no findings have been given on this submission of the assessee that the cash found was out of the cash withdrawals. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to set aside this issue back to the file of the ld. CIT(A). 16. Now we will deal with the appeal of Sh. Rajesh Kumar Gupta in ITA No. 7040/Del/2014, the only grievance of the assessee in this appeal relates to the sustenance of addition of Rs. 7,00,000/- found during the course of search. 17. Facts of the case in brief are that during the course of search cash amounting to Rs. 9,75,490/- was found. The AO observed that the....