AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (1) TMI 1079
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....scussed in brief. The revenue carried out search and seizure operations u/s 132 of the Act in the hands of the assessee on 08-12-2013. During the course of search, the gold ornaments weighing 7442.30 grams was found, which included bullion of 1500 grams. After considering the explanations given by the assessee, the AO assessed value of following jewellery/bullion as unexplained investment in the hands of the assessee:- Value of bullion (1500 grms x Rs. 2872/- per gram) - Rs. 43,08,000 Value of Ornaments (2668.390 gms x Rs. 2620/gm) - Rs. 69,91,181 Value of jewellery not seized(2308 gms xRs. 2620/gm)- Rs. 60,46,960 Total Value Rs. 1,73,46,141 4. The Ld CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs. 43,08,000/- and Rs. 69,91,181/- relating to first two items stated above. With regard to the third item, the Ld CIT(A) granted relief of Rs. 22,27,000/-,being the value of 850 grams. In this regard, the Ld CIT(A) has given credit of 500 grams for married lady (wife of assessee), 250 grams for unmarried lady (daughter of assessee) and 100 grams (for the assessee) by considering the Instruction No.1916 dated 11.05.1994 issued by CBDT for not seizing the jewellery. Aggrieved by the order pas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ding 31-02-2013 placed at 47 - 99 of the paper, more particularly page 57 of the paper book, wherein it has been reported that the Closing stock of Gold Bullion includes 1500 grams held with the Income tax department. The Ld A.R submitted that the accounts of the above said company has been audited and the stock details has been accepted by VAT authorities also. Accordingly, he submitted that there is no reason to reject the explanations of the assessee that the gold bullion does not belong to him. Accordingly, the Ld A.R submitted that the AO was not justified in assessing the 1500 grams of gold bullion, since it does not belong to the assessee. 7. The Ld D.R, on the contrary, reiterated the opinion expressed by the AO by adverting our attention to the relevant pages of the assessment order. 8. We heard rival contentions on this issue and perused the record. We noticed that the assessee has disowned the gold bullion of 1500 grams and in support of the same, he has furnished a copy of stock register of M/s B & B Jewellers and Finance Ltd. The AO has rejected the said explanation on the reasoning that there is variation between the stock register obtained at the time of search an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... & B Jewellers and Finance Ltd has been accepted in its assessment by the concerned assessing officer and further, in the absence of any other credible material to support the view of the AO, we are of the opinion that there is no reason to take a different view in the hands of the assessee. However, since this fact requires verification, we restore this issue to the file of the AO for the limited purpose of examining the view taken by the AO in the hands of M/s B & B Jewellers and Finance Ltd. If the AO of the above said company has accepted the stock register, then we direct that the present addition should be deleted. Accordingly, the order passed by Ld CIT(A) on this issue stands set aside. 12. The next issue relates to the addition of Rs. 69,91,181/- relating to 2668.390 grams of jewellery found during the course of search. With regard to these jewelleries, the assessee explained that they belong to his wife Smt. Teena Bethala and they were purchased in 2004. In support of the same, the assessee furnished a copy of purchase bill dated 03-10-2004. The AO noticed that the above said purchase bill has been issued by M/s B B Jewellers & Finance (P) Ltd and it did not contain t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....buyer have accepted the transactions. (c) the transaction is evidenced by the availability of jewellery It is a known fact that in the case of bogus bills or accommodation entries, there will not be any actual transfer of goods/money. However, in the instant case, the jewelleries have been found during the course of search. Hence it cannot be considered as a case of accommodation entry, as presumed by the AO. In any case, as rightly pointed out by Ld A.R, the AO has entertained this presumption only on surmises and conjectures. The evidence furnished by the assessee proves the factum of purchase of jewellery. Absence of description of jewelleries, in our view, cannot be ground to suspect the nature of transaction, since the bill could have been prepared on the basis of understanding of the parties and further other factors support the genuineness of the transactions. We notice that the AO has not conducted any enquiry with Smt Teena Bethala and hence he could not have drawn any conclusion on the basis of return of income filed by her. 16. Accordingly, we are of the view that the AO has not brought on record any credible material to disprove the explanations of the assessee an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 44 the PAN details of all family members are given. The Ld A.R submitted that the assessee's family is carrying on jewellery business and the AO should not have presumed that the family members could not have possessed any jewellery. In any case, the limits of jewellery prescribed in the CBDT instruction is the minimum amount of jewellery that should be left unseized and it does not mean that the entire jewellery found during the course of search should be considered as unexplained. He submitted that the AO should have made reasonable estimate of jewellery that should be belonging to each of the family members, by considering the status of the family of the assessee, if he is not accepting the explanations of the assessee. 20. On the contrary, the Ld D.R supported the order passed by Ld CIT(A). 21. We heard the parties on this issue and perused the record. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the family of the assessee is engaged in jewellery business. Hence it is inconceivable that the family members could not have possessed any jewellery. The quantity of 500 grams, 250 grams and 100 grams mentioned in the CBDT instruction is not the upper limit for giving credit. ....