TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 1038
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e locker in law and husband of the appellant and hence the addition in the hands of the appellant is uncalled for. 3.) That it is accordingly prayed that the additions confirmed by the Learned Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals) may kindly be deleted. 4) That the appellant further prays that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) initiated by the Learned Assessing Officer may also kindly be dropped. 5) That the appellant craves leave to add or amend any ground of appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that a search & seizure operation under section 132 of the IT Act was conducted at the residence of Smt. Suneela Soni at 57, Vigyan Lok, Delhi-l l 0092 as well as at locker No. 815, Central Bank Of India, Yojna Vihar Market, Delhi and locker No. 817 Vijaya Bank, Vigyan Vihar, Delhi in connection with search & seizure operation under section 132 of the IT Act conducted on Monnet Group of cases on 19.11.2010. The case of the assessee was centralized with DCIT Central Circle-20, New Delhi, vide order No. CIT-XII/Centraiisation/2011-12/98 dated 07.04.2011. Accordingly, Notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued on 04/09/2012. In response to the notice under se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e as mentioned above has been considered and was disposed off by referring section 132(4A) and Section 69 of the Act at page no. 3 & 4 of the assessment order and held that assessee has failed to discharge her onus of satisfactorily explaining the source of acquisition of gold jewellery and silver utensils, therefore, after considering the CBDT circular as referred above, the amount of Rs. 10,65,312/- was considered to be deemed income of the assessee and added back to the declared income of the assessee for the AY 2011-12 vide order dated 28.3.2013 and assessed the income of the assessee at Rs. 16,69,482/-. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order dated 18.6.2015 has dismissed the appeal of the assessee, in view of the CBDT's circular as referred above. 3. Aggrieved with the impugned order dated 18.6.2015 assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. At the time of hearing Ld. Counsel of the assessee stated that lower authorities have wrongly made and / or upheld the addition of Rs. 10,65,312.00 on account of purported unexplained jewelery claimed by the assessee without appreciating the fact that the jewel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xplanation assessee's counsel has requested that addition claim of 500 gms in the case of deceased mother in law be allowed and an addition relief of 100 gms be allowed in the case of minor son of the assessee and further the silver utensils owned by the mother in law. Considering the addition claim of 600 gms, the balance 525 gms of gold jewellery and the 1283 grams of silver utensils thus be held as duly explained in the hands of the assessee and accordingly, the appeal of the assessee may be allowed. 5. On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below. He stated that total jewellery found at the residence and lockers of the assessee at the time of search, the AO has already taken 500 gms as explained in the hands of the assessee and 200 gms as explained in the hands of her husband and father in law, in view of the CBDT's instruction no. 1916 dated 11.5.1999 and stated that it is only the excess jewellery over and above and in the absence of any documentary evidence, the AO has rightly made the addition in dispute u/s. 69A of the Act and Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the same, which does not need any interference. 6. I have heard both the parties and perus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Ashok Chadha vs. ITO reported in 14 taxmann.com 57 (Delhi.)/202 Taxmann 395 has accepted the jewellery of 906.60 grams in the case of married lady even without documentary evidence as the denying the explanation would tantamount to overlooking the realities of life by holding as under:- "As far as addition qua jewellery is concerned, during the course of search, jewellery weighing 906.900 grams of the value amounting to Rs. 6,93,582 was found. The appellant's explanation was that he was married about 25 years back and the jewellery comprised "streedhan" of Smt. Jyoti Chadha, his wife and other small items jewellery subsequently purchased and accumulated over the years. However, the Assessing Officer did not accept the above explanation on the ground that documentary evidence regarding family status and their financial position was not furnished by the appellant. The Assessing Officer accepted 400 grams of jewellery as explained and treated jewellery amounting to 506.900 grams as unexplained and made an ad hoc addition of Rs. 3,87,364 under section 69A of the Act working on unexplained jewellery, by applying average r....