TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (5) TMI 42
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of the fact that panchnama was prepared at the time of search on September 7, 1989?" A search was conducted in this case on September 7, 1989, inter alia, jewellery weighing 382.5 gms was found at the time of search. Before the Assessing Officer, the case of the assessee was that there are three ladies in the family and this jewellery belonged to them. The explanation was rejected and addition of Rs. 1,00,000 was made on account of unexplained investment in jewellery and precious stones. In appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) considering the status of the assessee found that the gold jewellery belonged to the three ladies and addition on account of unexplained investment in go....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee had a decent standard of living. In other words, the assessee was from a good background. Moreover, to have a jewellery or ornaments weighing nearly 33 tolas between 3 ladies is not a substantial quantity as it works out to nearly 11 tolas per married lady. No material or evidence has been placed on record to show that the part or whole of gold ornaments/jewellery found are unaccounted. Besides, the learned Assessing Officer has himself taken the value of unexplained investment at Rs. 1 lakh. Therefore, in my opinion, no addition was called for as far as the jewellery and gold ornaments found was concerned because, as already stated, the quantity of the jewellery or ornaments held by each lady had not been determined during the proc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ions of learned counsel of the assessee that in case the Assessing Officer did not agree with the value of the stone asserted by the assessee, the Assessing Officer should have exercised the option given by the assessee, i.e., to get the stones valued by an approved valuer. The action of the Assessing Officer in taking the value at Rs. 53,500 without any basis is definitely arbitrary which cannot be sustained in law. In the circumstances, I have no other alternative but to restore the question of value of stones found to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction that the stones seized may be got valued through an approved valuer and thereafter the value of the stones should be determined. Secondly, the Assessing Officer should al....