TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 1246
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and circumstances of the case, the ld CIT(A) has erred in holding 10% value of jewellery i.e. Rs. 3,57,080/- as unexplained jewellery in view of the explanation given and documentary evidence submitted. Therefore, the same is liable to be deleted. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the ld CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1.5 lac as cash in hand found at the premises of the assessee in view of the explanation given and other evidence submitted. Therefore, the same is liable to be deleted." 3. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 5939/Del/2014 for the Assessment Year 2011-12:- "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd trading of tobacco and premium pan masala besides other businesses. The assessee is an individual. She filed her return of income for AY 2011 - 12 on 27/2/2013 declaring total income of Rs. 7, 11, 013/-. The learned AO noted that during the course of search, jewelry as per the valuation made by the government registered valuer was found of Rs. 53, 29, 753/- containing 25 items and out of which jewelry valued at Rs. 3570806/- was seized. Weight of jewelry was gold of 453.738 grams and 75.72 grams of stones. Thus, assessee was asked to explain the source of acquisition of the above jewelry. Assessee stated that in wealth tax returns filed by her and other female members of the family, declared value of total jewelry of Rs. 1.24 crores and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed CIT - A was decided by the coordinate benches in favour of assessee, therefore the issue squarely covered in favour of the assessee. Even otherwise, he submitted that the difference is only on estimated basis because of valuation. He submitted the copies of the decision of the coordinate bench in case of ITA No. 6103 and 5938/2014 for assessment year 2011 - 12 dated 28/06/2018 and ITA number 5296 and 5369 for assessment year 2011 - 12 dated 12/2/2016. 9. The learned departmental representative supported the order of the learned AO. 10. Having heard the learned counsels at length and having given our earnest consideration to the rival contentions, the material placed on record and case laws, we are unable to sustain the findings of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h of Rs. 9.60 lakhs were found at the residence of assessee and assessee failed to explain the source thereof and therefore Rs. 8 lakhs were seized. The explanation submitted by the assessee was that she is a widow of Mr. Satyanarayan Gupta who passed away on 16/5/2009 and after the demise of her husband; she got cash amounting to Rs. 2.25 lakhs in April 2010 besides her petty savings from household expenses of Rs. 0. 50 lakhs. She further stated that she received rental income of Rs. 4 .26 lakhs which was disclosed in the return of income. She also stated that on her 65th birthday on 20 August 2010, she also received certain gifts and therefore cash seized of Rs. 8 lakhs during search is not unexplained. The learned assessing officer did n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... lakhs out of the amount of Rs. 2.25 lakhs stated to be the cash left by the husband of the appellant at the time of his death. He further submitted that when they learned assessing officer has accepted the fact of cash having been left by the husband of the assessee but without any material or reason has restricted it to the extent of Rs. 1 lakhs only. He further stated that looking to the status of the assessee and the financial condition of the whole family it is not unusual that she might have got this sum on demise of her husband. 14. The learned departmental representative vehemently supported the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that learned assessing officer has allowed the claim of the assessee to the extent of Rs. ....