TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (4) TMI 763
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The return was filed on 31.10.2005 declaring total income at Rs. 3,17,200/-. However, the assessment was completed at an income of Rs. 10,86,070/- including the addition of unexplained cash credit Rs. 3,88,500/- and unexplained investment in diamond jewellery Rs. 3,80,374/-, vide order dated 13.12.2006 passed under section 143(3) read with section 153B(b) of the Act. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. Ground No.1 is against the validity of the order passed by the AO and Ground No.2 is the general ground. 5. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee did not press the above grounds which was not objected to by the Ld.DR. 6. That being so and in the absence of any other supporting materials placed on record by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, the Ground Nos.1 and 2 taken by the assessee are, therefore, rejected being not pressed. 7. Ground No.3 is against the sustenance of addition of unexplained cash Rs. 3,88,500/-. 8. Brief facts of the above issue are that during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that during the course of search....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... considered the submissions of the rival parties and perused the material available on record. We find that there is no dispute that in the statement recorded at the time of search, the AO specifically asked about the cash of Rs. 3,88,500/- vide question No.8 as under : "Q.No.8 : Cash of Rs. 3,88,500/- was found from your bedroom. Do you confirm that the same belongs to you only. Ans : It is combined cash of family" We further find that during the course of assessment proceedings the assessee vide letter dated 13.10.2006 has stated as under : "Regarding seizure of Rs. 5,00,000/- I want to state that during the course of search in my statement I stated that this cash belongs to us and our family members. All our family members are income tax payer since last so many years. In every case we are filling balance sheet and paying income tax regularly. I have to married sons and we all three are also filing return in HUF capacity. Whatever cash was found it was accounted and explained and it was ... Details of cash balances S. No. Date Name cash Source Seized Returned 1 8.9.2004 Bharat Jethani (M/s Bell Computers) 4,44,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....amond jewellery of the value of Rs. 4,20,374/- was found. The description of the diamond jewellery declared under VDIS does not match with the diamond jewellery found at the time of search. Therefore, the AO did not accept the assessee's explanation that the diamond jewellery was disclosed in VDIS. The AO after taking into account the age of the assessee, past savings, business etc. considered that the jewellery of the value of Rs. 40,000/- as explained and treated the balance investment in diamond jewellery Rs. 3,80,374/- (420374-40000) as unexplained investment out of undisclosed source and added the same to the total income of the assessee. Regarding gold jewellery, the AO treated the same as explained and hence he did not make any addition. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) while observing that in the absence of any convincing evidence, confirmed the addition made by the AO. 14. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee placed on record the following chart: JETHANI FAMILY DIAMOND JHEWELLERY CHART S. No. Name of the person to whom diamond jewellery belongs Qty.in GMS/ Carats Value Rs. Source of Acquisition Remarks Page No. as per paper book 1 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under VDIS does not match with the jewellery found at the time of search. Merely because the jewellery disclosed under VDIS did not match with the jewellery found at the time of search does not mean that the jewellery found at the time of search is unexplained jewellery inasmuch as it is not the case of the Revenue that the jewellery which was disclosed by the assessee's wife under VDIS and in the return of wealth tax was over and above found at the time of search. Since no other jewellery was found during the course of search and keeping in view that the AO has accepted the gold jewellery in toto and diamond jewellery valued at Rs. 40,000/- we are of the view that the addition of the remaining amount of diamond jewellery of Rs. 3,80,374/- is not sustainable and accordingly the same is deleted. The ground taken by the assessee is, therefore, allowed. 17. Ground No.5 is against the levy of interest u/s 234A,234B and 234C. 18. After hearing rival parties and perusing the material available on record and in the absence of any plea, we direct the AO to allow consequential relief in respect of levy of interest charged u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. The ground taken by the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the assessee is, therefore, allowed. 26. Ground No.4 is against the levy of interest u/s 234A,234B and 234C. 27. After hearing rival parties and perusing the material available on record and in the absence of any plea, we direct the AO to allow consequential relief in respect of levy of interest charged u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. The ground taken by the assessee is, therefore, partly allowed. ITA No.4632/Mum/2008 (By.Mrs.Darshna K.Jethani) 28. Ground No.1 is against the validity of the order passed b by the AO and Ground No.2 is the general ground. 29. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee did not press the above grounds which was not objected to by the Ld.DR. 30. That being so and in the absence of any other supporting materials placed on record by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, the Ground Nos.1 and 2 taken by the assessee are, therefore, rejected being not pressed. 31. Ground No.3 is against the sustenance of addition of diamond and Gold jewellery of Rs. 5,61,000/-. 32. Brief facts of the above issue are that the AO observed that the diamond jewellery of Rs. 4,38,377/- was found. The assessee has no satisfactory explanation ....