TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 1207
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n account of unexplained investment u/s. 69A of the I.T. Act. ii) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the Department by Shri Sridhar Dora, Sr. DR. Assessee by Shri V.K. Agarwal, A.R. addition of Rs. 65,42,564/- made by the AO on the basis of old valuation report which had no evidentiary value as the valuation report was not filed with the department with any wealth tax return. iii) That the order of the CIT(A) is perverse, erroneous and is not tenable on facts and in law. iv) That the grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other. v) That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or forgo any ground(s) of appeal either b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order 21.12.2016 has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee and deleted the addition amounting to Rs. 65,42,564/-. Aggrieved with the impugned order the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. Ld. DR relied upon the order of the AO. He submitted that the addition was deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) on the basis of old valuation report which had not evidentiary value as the valuation report was not filed with the Department with any wealth tax return. Hence, he requested to Allow the Revenue's Appeal. 4. On the other hand, Ld. AR for the assessee has relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and in support thereof he filed a Paper Book containing pages 1 to 39 in which he has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y due to the reason that the jewellery found during the search was not supported by any bills or document, except for some fresh purchases. The valuation report prepared by the approved valuer Sh. Sanjay Prakash was not found during search and the valuer could not produce the records or date etc. of preparation of such valuation report, no payments were charged for such valuation, and hence rejected by the AO as prepared after search. The appellant has not disclosed this jewellery in his wealth tax returns as no wealth tax returns were filed by appellant and his family members. 9.1 It is a fact that during search on 07.03.2014, the said valuation report was not found, however in his statement recorded during search, the appellant h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is family members have duly owned up the jewellery in their hands and a valuation report has been provided to corroborate the same. Therefore, jewellery belonging to four family members cannot be added in the hands of appellant alone. 9.3 The appellant has mentioned that no Wealth Tax returns have been submitted. This alone cannot be the basis to make addition in the hands of appellant only, as this matter is quite old and appellant also have provided evidences in the form of old valuation report and proof of purchase of some jewellery, subsequently. However, if it is found by the AO that there is violation of Wealth Tax provisions, he is free to take action under Wealth Tax Act, as per law. 9.4 The contention of AO that n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t cannot be said that the valuation report was not prepared at that point of time. Here it is also to be mention that though during search no such valuation report .vas found but it was categorically stated by the appellant in his statement that it s the ancestral jewellery and after few days the said valuation report has been produced before the ADI, Investigation. 9.7 Therefore, the period and content of the valuation report cannot be considered as farce or prepared subsequently after search, looking to the submission by the approved valuer, supported by his affidavit. 9.8 Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case where the jewellery found during the course of search has been duly explained through the valuation....