TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (1) TMI 740
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....total income at Rs. 1,29,57,020/-. Thereafter, assessment was framed u/s 143(3) vide order dated 30.03.2015 and the total income was determined at Rs. 2,95,18,193/-. 4. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A) who vide order dated 21.02.2017 (in Appeal No. 198/15-16) granted partial relief to the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), Revenue and assessee are now in appeal before us. Before us, Revenue has raised following grounds in ITA No.2694/Del/2017 for A.Y. 2013-14: "1. The order of Ld. CIT(A) is not correct in law and on facts. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred deleting the addition of Rs. 1,59,98,173/- on account of unexplained Jewellery. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in accepting the submissions of the assessee without giving the department an opportunity to examine it. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in noting that the all the submissions were available with the A.O when the assessment folder do not show any such submission on record. 5. On the facts and circumstances, the CIT(A)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....153A of the Act. In the present case, the assessment has been framed u/s 143(3) and therefore AO was not required to take approval from JCIT. He therefore submitted that since in the present case the assessment order has been passed on the basis of approval and on the dictates of JCIT, the assessment order passed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the Act is invalid and therefore be held to be bad in law. 9. Learned DR on the other hand pointed to the findings of CIT(A) on the relevant issue at Para 4.2.2 of the order and submitted that Ld CIT(A) after calling and examination of the assessment records has noted that no directions were issued by Addl.CIT to complete the assessment in any of manner. In such a situation he submitted that there is no merit in the ground of the Assessee. He thus supported the order of CIT(A). 10. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials on record. In the present grounds the assessee is challenging the assessment framed by the AO u/s 143(3) on the ground that AO had obtained prior approval of JCIT u/s 153D of the Act which is contrary to the provisions of the Act. We find that CIT(A) while deciding the ground has noted the fact that he had ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....before the CIT(A) who after considering the submissions of the assessee noted the fact that the cash book furnished by the assessee has not been doubted by the AO but however concluded that the balance to the extent of Rs. 60,000/- has not been explained by the Assessee. He therefore deleted the addition to the extent of Rs. 5,33,000/- and upheld the addition of Rs. 60,000/-. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee and Revenue are now before us. 14. Before us, Learned AR submitted that on the date of search aggregated cash of Rs. 12,50,062.81 was found. He submitted that assessee has been maintaining a cash book and as per the cash book, the cash was Rs. 11,90,062/-. With respect to cash of Rs. 60,000/- found and which has been upheld by CIT(A) to be unexplained, it represented her pin money. He submitted that it is customary for the ladies to have some pin money which are savings out of the amounts received over the years. He therefore submitted that the addition made by the CIT(A) needs to be deleted. On the other hand, Learned DR pointing to the order of AO submitted that AO did not accept the contention of the assessee on the ground that assessee could not link cash found....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....17. 18. Ground No. 1 to 4 are interconnected with respect to the deleting the addition of Rs. 1,59,98,173/-. 19. During the course of search on Vatika Group, jewellery was found at various premises, the details of which are noted by the AO under Para 2 of the order. The net weight of jewellery found was 9373.300 gms and as per the Valuation Officer as on 01.06.2013 the value of such jewellery was Rs. 3,94,80,175/-. Assessee had claimed total jewellery to be explained and had also submitted the mode of its acquisition. The submissions of the assessee was not found acceptable to AO for the reasons inter alia that that no Wealth Tax Returns were filed by the assessee for A.Y. 2006-07 to 2012-13 within the due dates and the returns of Wealth filed by the assessee on 19.02.2013 was after the date of search. He also noted that assessee had not furnished any reconciliation of jewellery found during the present search and the earlier search carried out on 08.05.2013 and since there was a substantial time gap between both the search, the claim of the assessee remained unverified. He also noted that no evidence of purchase of jewellery, vouchers of purchase or the source of purchase....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing cheque payment of Rs. 75,590/-. He submitted that though the amount of Rs. 75,590/- is reflected in the bank statement on 26.09.2003 but it does not reflect to whom the payment was made and for what purpose the payment was made. He submitted that without the particulars of recipients it is not possible to accept the claim of the assessee that the payments have been made only for the purpose of purchase of jewellery. He therefore submitted that the assessee be asked to produce the evidence regarding the destination of the payments claimed for the purchase of jewellery so that the claim of the assessee can be verified. He thus supported the order of AO. Learned AR on the other hand pointed to the findings of CIT(A) inter alia that the assessee had given the breakup of purchases made during A.Y. 2004-05 to 2012-13 which were duly supported by bank statements showing such purchases, bulk of the payments for purchases being made by cheque and other findings. He further in the written submissions stated as under: "9. At the outset it is submitted that the learned AO while framing the assessment had committed the following fundamental errors: (a) The first of it bein....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eight, particularly to the exclusion of comparison item by item, has been prescribed as the decision making criterion for effecting seizure. iii. Smt. Krishna Wanti Batra vs. ACIT 149 Taxman 36 (Del) iv. GaurishankerOmkarmal vs. ITO: 37 TTJ 353 (Ahd.) v. DCIT vs. Arjun DassKalwani: 101 ITD 337 (Jodh.) vi. Sh. Arvind Agarwal and Sh. Subhash Agarwal: I.T.A. Nos.455, 277, 278 & 443/Ind/2013 (Indore) vii. Raj Kumar B Agrawal Vs DCIT 176 DTR (Pune) Trib 273 viii. ACIT vs Krishan Kumar Modi (ITA 2892 to 2894/Del/2017&3952 to 3956/Del /2017 dated 05.07.2019) (b) The second being the learned AO had conveniently ignored that the assessee held on 08.05.2003, the jewellery weighing 2625.840 gms out of an aggregate weight of jewellery found weighing 4514.300 gms. The remaining jewellery belonged to her daughter in law Smt. Divya Bhalla . He has also failed to appreciate that in the course of assessment proceeding u/s 158BC of the Act it was found that said jewellery is explained. The order of assessment had been placed before the AO and is at Pg. 170 - 178 of PB. The list of the inventory prepared on the date of search on 08.05.200....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... supported the order of CIT(A). 23. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present grounds of the Revenue is with respect to deleting the addition made by CIT(A) on account of jewellery. 24. It is undisputed fact that during the course of search at the residential premises of the assessee, jewellery was found. The assessee was asked to explain the source of its acquisition. The explanations given by the assessee about the source of acquisition of jewellery was not found acceptable to AO and accordingly AO made addition of Rs. 1,59,68,173/- in the hands of the assessee. When the matter was carried before CIT(A), the entire addition was deleted by him. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), Revenue is now before us. We find that CIT(A) while deleting the addition has given a finding that assessee had given the breakup of purchase of jewellery made during AY 2004-05 to 2012-13 duly supported by bank statements showing the details of such purchases and that the payment for bulk of the purchases have been made by cheque. He has further noted that the aforesaid details were available before the AO but the AO for mysterious reasons has no....