TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (2) TMI 901
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....short) were carried out in the premises of various cases of SMC Group of cases on 04.08.2011, including in the premises of the Assessee. Cash amounting to Rs. 19,50,000/- was found from the premises of the amounting to Rs. 19,50,000/- was found from the premises of the Assessee. Further, jewellery valued at Rs. 1,09,72,957/- was also found from the premises of the Assessee. In assessment Order dated 31.03.2014 U/s 143(3) of the IT Act, the AO made an addition of Rs. 9,75,000/- on account of cash found from the Assessee's premises at the time of search and seizure operations. The AO also made an addition of Rs. 1,09,72,957/- on account of jewellery found from the Assessee's premises. The relevant portion of the Assessment Order is reproduced....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the date of search. The assessee failed to disclose this unexplained amount. Hence, an addition of Rs. 9,75,000/- made on a/c of unexplained cash found/seized during the search and taxed accordingly. (Addition: Rs. 9,75,000/-) 4.2 In the facts & circumstances of case as discussed above I am satisfied that the assessee has concealed & furnished the inaccurate particulars of income to the tune of Rs. 9,75,000/- within meaning of section 271(l)(c). Therefore, assessee is liable for the levy of penalty u/s 271(l)(c). The proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) are initiated separately. 5. Jewellery of Rs. 1,09,72,957/- found and out of which Rs. 43,72,167/- was seized during the course of search (last date of operation of locker 6.6.2011).....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated separately." 2. Aggrieved, the Assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who, vide impugned Order dated 18.12.2014 deleted the aforesaid additions. The relevant portion of the impugned Order of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: "4. The only effective ground of appeal is the second ground numbered 1.2 wherein the appellant has challenged the additions of Rs. 9,75,000/- being 50% of cash amounting to Rs. 19,50,000/- found in the course of search, and Rs. 1,09,72,957/- being jewelry found during the course of search out of which jewelry of the value of Rs. 43,72,167/- was seized. We shall discuss these two additions separately. 5.1 During the course of search cash amounting ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the Wealth Tax Records of Sh. Sanjay Aggrawal & Sons (HUF) as per the valuation report dated 23.03.2011. Therefore, there is no basis to reach the conclusion that jewelry found in the residence of the appellant was undisclosed. The addition made is erroneous and is deleted." 3. Now, Revenue has filed the appeal in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('ITAT' for short) in which the following grounds of appeal have been raised: "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in:- 1. The order of the CIT(A) is not correct in law and facts. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the addition of cash found & seized during the course of sear....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed in favour of the Assessee. 6. We have heard both sides patiently. We have perused all materials on our records carefully. We have considered the judicial precedents brought to our attention. We have also considered the judicial precedents referred to in the records. We are of the view that the reliance placed by the Ld. CIT(DR) on the various judicial precedents does not advance the case of the Revenue because these judicial precedents are on materially different and clearly distinguishable facts. In the case of R Mallika Vs CIT(supra) and CIT Vs R Mallika(supra), the Assessee had not discharged burden as regards source from which investment had been made. However, in the case before us the Assessee had furnished explanation to the AO....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that the cash found at the time of search and seizure operation U/s 132 of IT Act from the premises of the Assessee was less than the cash in hand amounting to Rs. 2,57,87,960/- as per books of account. We further find that the jewellery found from the Assessee's premises was less than jewellery valued at Rs. 4,94,89,342/- as per Wealth Tax Records of various persons. In view of the foregoing facts, impugned Order of the Ld. CIT(A) wherein he deleted the aforesaid additions of Rs. 9,75,000/- and Rs. 1,09,72,957/-, needs no interference. The cash found, amounting to Rs. 9,75,000/-, being less than cash balance as per books of account; is fully explained by cash balance as per books of account. The AO erred in making addition of the aforesa....