2020 (8) TMI 816

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....wellery found during earlier search on assessee on 28.02.07 when jewellery of 969.300 Gms. was found and as there is no dispute that none of the old jewellery stands disposed off till the date of present search, therefore in view of explanations given, the complete jewellery of 947.074 Gms. should be held as fully explained. 1.2 That without prejudice, in view of the fact that prior to the date of present search, the locker No.487PNB from where the jewellery was found was lastly operated on 29.10.15 (A.Y. 16-17), hence under no circumstance, the issue of this jewellery can be considered in A.Y.17-18. 1.3 That Without prejudice, Ld. CIT(A), under the facts and circumstances, erred in law and on merits in not accepting the alleged additional evidences, filed before him on the jewellery issue. 2. That under the facts and circumstances, deduction of Rs. 34,070/- should had been allowed u/s.24 out of income from house property in respect of let out Flat No.5K-096, Ridge Wood Estate DLF-Gurgaom 2. The briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, was subjected to search proceedings under section 132A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d in earlier search proceeding during the year 2007 also and a list of the jewellery weight 969.300 gms. found was also made at that time. The assessee submitted that net weight of the jewelry found in present search is lower than the jewelry found during the year 2007. But, according to the Assessing Officer, the assessee failed to reconcile items of jewellery found in the present search with the list of the jewellery found in the search during 2007 and therefore he held the jewellery of Rs. 17,49,941/-, which was seized during search, as unexplained jewelry u/s 69A of the Act. Before the Learned CIT(A), the assessee reiterated the submission that weight of the jewellery found in present search being less than the weight of the jewellery found in the search for the year 2007 & therefore, the jewelry found in the current search stands explained. The assessee also filed locker opening record, which were obtained from the bank, and submitted that the locker was lastly operated on 29/10/2015 (assessment year 2016-17) and therefore jewellery existed in the locker as on 29/10/2015. The assessee, before the learned CIT(A) submitted that in view of the locker opening record, the jewelry c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....) and decision of the Pune bench of the Tribunal in the case of Raj Kumar B Agrawal Vs DCIT 176 DTR (Pune) Trib 273. 4.5 The Learned DR, on the other hand, submitted that decisions relied upon by the Learned Counsel of the assessee are not applicable in the case of the assessee and he distinguished the decisions on the ground that in above cases jewelry was found declared in wealth tax returns/VDIS declaration, which are documents maintained under statutory regulations. 4.6 The second contention raised by the learned Counsel of the assessee is that keeping in view the span of the long married life of 25 years, the jewelry found of 947.074 gms should not be doubted as assessee belong to an affluent family and ladies gets jewellery as a gift and get the same out of the liquid funds received by them from various relatives friends and well-wishers on various occasions. In support of the claim the Learned Counsel of assessee relied on the decision in the case of Ashok Chaddha Vs ITO (2012) 69 DTR (DEL) 82. With regard to this contention of the Learned Counsel of the assessee, the learned DR submitted that credit of 500 gms has already been allowed to the assessee in view of the CB....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....igns. In the case of RajKumar B Agrawal (supra) also the Tribunal concluded that so long as the total weight of the gold jewellery found at the time of the search matches with the earlier declaration made by the assessee in wealth tax returns and VDIS declaration the addition cannot be made simply on the ground that description of the items in the list declared under wealth tax returns/VDIS is different from those actually found. 4.11 In the present case before us, to support the availability of the jewellery, the assessee has filed a copy of the valuation report prepared during the course of the search in calendar year 2007, which is a document of the Department having evidential value akin to a copy wealth tax return or VDIS declaration. We do not agree with the contention of the Learned DR that slight mismatch in the name of the jewelry articles, should not be allowed just because the jewellery weight found during search of 2007 is not supported by wealth tax returns. In the case of the assessee, the wealth of the assessee was less than the threshold amount of wealth liable to wealth tax and therefore the assessee did not file the wealth tax return. So if the wealth tax re....