TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 145
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l all dated 18.01.2021 which are arising out of the orders u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961(In short the 'Act') dated 26.12.2019 framed by ACIT (Central-1, Indore. Common grounds have been raised by the above assessees with regard to upholding the additions of Rs. 37,93,608/- each in the total income of the respective assesse(s) (i.e. 1/3rd of the jewellery/ornaments of Rs. 1,13,80,825/- seized during course of search). 2. Both the parties submitted that case of Shri Manish Kumar Kedia is the lead case and facts and circumstances of remaining two cases i.e. Smt. Chardra Devi Kedia & Shri Santosh Kumar Kedia are identical to the case of Shri Manish Kumar Kedia and as such, the decision taken in the case of Shri Manish Kumar Kedia shall....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of jewellery found vis-à-vis the jewellery of which source was filed, as appearing in the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) at page 18 of the order. Before learned CIT(A), the assessee had submitted the statement along with relevant document/evidences and tried to explain each and every individual items of jewellery. However, the Ld. CIT(A) rejected all the submissions/representations/evidences and confirmed the addition in respect of the jewellery held by assessee along with its family members. 3. Being aggrieved, the assessee is before this Tribunal. Before us, learned Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the Revenue Authorities and submitted that the addition under question made by the Ld. AO and upheld by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er considering reply of the assessee did not find the same acceptable and stated that no satisfactory explanation has been given by the appellant in support of his claim and has treated jewellery of Rs. 1,13,80,825/- as unexplained and made addition of Rs. 37,93,608/- being 1/3rd share of appellant. 4.5.1 I have considered facts of the case, plea raised by the appellant and findings of the AO. The appellant before me has claimed that the total jewellery found during the course of search was 5575.95 grams which include gold jewellery 5305.75 grams, diamonds 349.23 carat, stones/others. 110 carat and silver 12906 gms. The appellant submitted that out of entire jewellery 1561.23 gms was purchased and in support has filed various bills and v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dustrial conglomerates as promoter director for over the years and the jewellery and ornaments under question is family jewellery / ornaments which is either inherited from Will of grandfather late Shri Narayan Das Kedia dated 17.7.1969 or purchased/acquired by the family members time to time over the years (apart from the Jewellery/ornaments disclosed under VDIS 1997 or jewellery received by the Soniya Kedia w/o Manish Kumar Kedia from her grandmother vide 1.5.2007 by way of gift), as explained and substantiated by the assesse with relevant documents. We find that the total Jewellery and ornaments of the value as arrived by Department of Rs. 2,83,23,743/ (1,69,42,918 + 1,13,80,825) having the weight of the gold of 5305.75 gms, diamond of 3....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellery in a case where the assessee had explained total quantity of Gold found (of about 5kg) and the total diamonds of about 350 carats found as well as silver utensils and other valuable stones found during course of search. Our view is supported by the following judicial pronouncements: i. ITAT bench at Kolkata in the matter of DCIT v. Raj-Kumar Saraogi arising out of ITA No.1776/Kol/2012 & IT(SS) No.97/Kol/2013. ii. ITAT Ahmedabad Bench in the matter of D.C.I.T. v. Meena G. Agarwal MANU/IB/0255/2015 iii. ITAT bench at Ahmedabad in the matter of Liza Girish Shah v. DCIT, in ITA No. 2516 and 2685/Ahd/2010 iv. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Simon Carves Ltd. MANU/SC/0218/1976[1976] 105 ITR 212, v. ACIT v. Kancha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntity of jewellery and ornaments from seizure". Reliance is placed on the decision of ITAT Mumbai in the matter of Nawaz Singhania Vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) IT Appeal No. 3979 (MUM). Of 2017¸ wherein clause (iii) of the CBDT Information No. 1916 had been taken up for consideration holding that a CBDT Circular which has a binding force, having deliberately being ignored during the assessment itself tantamounts to a defect in the order of AO and the Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in confirming the addition made by the Ld. AO on depriving appellant from the benefits under the aforementioned CBDT Circular No. 1916. However, we find that in the instant case, the Assessing Officer failed to appreciate the status of the assesse family and unjusti....