TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (7) TMI 686
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rom other sources. She filed her return of income u/s 139(4) for the A.Y 2015-16 on 3.2.2016 declaring total income at Rs6,99,080/-. A search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on the assessee as part of the search conducted on M/s. Kapil Consultancy Service P Ltd and others on 7.4.2017 by the DDIV(Inv.) Hyderabad. In response to the notice issued u/s 153A of the I.T. Act, 1961, the assessee filed her return of income on 11.10.2019 declaring total income of Rs.6,99,080/-. 2.1 The Assessing Officer noted that during the course of Search and Seizure & operation u/s.132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at the residential premises of Sri Kasuganti Vaman Rao at Villa No.38, Ektha Prime High Land Park, Survey No.338, Nanakramguda, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rom the bank accounts of assessee and her spouse during FY 2014-15 is Rs.25,84,000/-. He, therefore, held that only cash withdrawals of Rs.25,84,000/- being the withdrawals in financial year 2014-15 can be considered for explanation of the sources of excess jewellery worth Rs.1,12,95,600/-. The Assessing Officer accordingly brought to tax the balance amount of Rs.87,11,600/-. 3. Before the learned CIT (A), the assessee made elaborate arguments. However, the learned CIT (A) was not fully satisfied with the arguments advanced by the assessee and gave partial relief of Rs.27,56,250/- and sustained an amount of Rs.59,55,350/- by observing as under: "5.3 I have carefully considered the submissions made by the appellant as well as the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efit may be given to that extent to the appellant. The appellant has also stated that she and her husband withdrawn from banks of Rs.91,61,000/- for the FYs 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 which was utilized for acquisition of gold and the difference is fully explained on account of the withdrawals. The appellant also contended that she is an independent assessee paying taxes for several years and therefore pleaded that the addition may be deleted. 5.3.2 I have considered the submissions of the appellant and the findings of the Aa. It is true that while setting off the estimate value of Jewellery identified in the premises of the assessee on the date of Search i.e., 07-04-2017, the Aa has set off the book value in the wealth tax return ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essment order that the AO has already given the benefit of cash withdrawals of Rs.24,84,000/- in AY 2015-16 while computing the excess jewellery. The withdrawals in AY 2014-15 were already incorporated in the Wealth Tax return and a second benefit of the same cannot be given. Hence this proposition of the appellant is not acceptable and is rejected. However, in AY 2015-16, withdrawals were short computed by Rs.7,50,000/- as one bank account was omitted while computing the withdrawals. Therefore, the benefit of Rs.7,50,000/- is given to the appellant. In view of the above the excess jewellery in the hands of appellant is worked out at Rs.59,55,350/- (Rs.2,17,95,600-Rs.1,25,06,250 (Rs.25,84,000 - Rs.7,50,000). The appellant gets relief of Rs.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....als available to the assessee for explaining the source of purchase of jewellery sustained the addition which is not correct. 6. The learned DR, on the other hand, strongly relied on the order of the learned CIT (A). He submitted that the learned CIT (A) after considering the totality of the facts of the case has very reasonably deleted the addition to the extent of Rs.27,56,250/- and sustained the addition of Rs.59,55,350/-only which is fully justified under the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the AO and learned CIT (A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us by both sides. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld jewellery found on the date of search and the quantity of gold jewellery declared in the Wealth Tax Return on the valuation date should have been first considered. Thereafter, whatever withdrawals available to the assessee for purchase of such diamond/gold jewellery on the basis of the market value should have been considered and only the balance amount should have been added or if according to the Assessing Officer, the source stands explained, then no addition should have been made. However, in the instant case neither the Assessing Officer nor the learned CIT (A) have done this exercise, nor even the assessee has done this exercise and the addition has been made on the basis of lumpsum market value which in our opinion is a flawed exe....