TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 581
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 37.01 Lacs on account of unexplained jewellery. The assessment for impugned AY was framed by Ld. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-42, Mumbai [AO] on 30/12/2009 u/s 143(3) read with Section 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2.1 Briefly stated, the assessee being resident individual engaged in the business of sale of Painting / Archives / Interior Designing under proprietorship concern namely M/s Reflections, was assessed for impugned AY u/s 143(3) read with section 153B consequent to search action on 17/04/2007 on ACG Art group, the assessee being part of the said group. 2.2 To Ld. AO noted that ACG art group was one of the multi locational organizations belonging to a business group in Mumbai. The group dealt in manufa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....566.30 grams valued at Rs. 25.27 Lacs & excess diamond jewellery weighing around 106.90 grams, 15.510 carat valued at Rs. 16.53 Lacs. 2.6 The assessee produced various evidences to demonstrate the date / cost acquisition of the paintings. However, not convinced, Ld. AO rejected the evidences submitted by the assessee with respect to certain paintings valued at Rs. 244.95 Lacs, the details of which has been provided in the Annexure attached to quantum assessment order and added the same to the income of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee contested the same with partial success before Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 19/12/2011. The assessee re-submitted the various evidences to prove the year, cost and source of acquisition of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or Assessee [AR], drawing our attention to the documents placed in the paper book contended that the assessee produced certain evidences before lower authorities to demonstrate that the paintings in dispute were acquired by the assessee long time back and few paintings were received either in gifts or kept with the assessee by artist on sale on approval basis and therefore, additions thereof was not justified. Per Contra, Ld. DR contended that the assessee could not discharge the onus of proving the source of paintings with cogent evidences and therefore, additions were justified. 5. We have carefully heard the rival contentions and perused relevant material on record. We find that the assessee has suffered aggregate addition of Rs. 244.95....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... No. Artist Name Titled Medium Size Value 1. Dalamal 8 Jehangir Jani Playing Rangoli Oil on Canvas 60x70 6,00,000/- 2. Scitech 58 Shubham Kaw Two Tree Trunks 47.5x35 10,00,000/- 3. Reflections 60 Unknown (Prof. Capt. G.Soloman) Sybil Oil on Canvas 20.5x15.5 10,00,000/- 4. Reflections 22 Nandalal Bose Man praying in Water Water Colour 8.5x18 1,75,000/- 5. Brighton 37 Shanti Dave Untitled Mix. Media on Canvas 31.5x16 5,00,000/- 6. Swapnalok 1 M.F.Hussain Mother Teressa Oil on Canvas 36x30 40,00,000/- 7. Swapnalok 2 Jamini Roy Untitled Silk Cloth 42x9.5 8,00,000/- 8. Swapnalok 5 K.H.Ara Nude Water Colour 27x20 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessee much prior in earlier years and the revenue had no justification to add the same. The assessee, prima facie discharged the primary onus of proving the source of these painting and the onus was shifted on revenue to negate the same. There is nothing adverse on record to rebut the various contentions of the assessee and revenue has made the additions merely on the basis of suspicion which was not justified. Hence, we are inclined to delete the additions with respect to painting listed at Serial No. 1 to 8. Further, the paintings listed at Serial No. 9 & 10 belonging to an artist A.R.Chugta valued at Rs. 60 Lacs are supported by the voucher dated 12/02/2001 and the payment thereof amounting to Rs. 0.52 Lacs has been made by the asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mises. Therefore, in the absence of any cogent material on record to contradict the claim of the assessee, the addition thereof was not justified and hence, the same stands deleted. 9. The paintings listed at Serial Number 5 comprised of seven paintings. Out of these paintings, two paintings of an artist namely M.V.Dhurandhar valued at Rs. 3 Lacs each is supported by receipt dated 19/01/2000. From the perusal of stock record of M/s reflections as on 31/03/2008, it is seen that these painting forms part of the closing stock. Therefore, since the same have duly been accounted for in the books of accounts of the assessee and forms part of stock-in-trade, the addition thereof is not justified. No serious arguments have been adduced against oth....