AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 1078
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee could not explain the source of acquisition thereof. (ii) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in allowing relief on account of jewellery items worth Rs.84,53,902/- by not appreciating the fact that the reason for non-seizure of jewellery items to the extent of a prescribed limit cannot be the reason for non-considering the same for the assessment purpose also in view of the fact that the same may be acquired from undisclosed sources which had escaped taxation. (iii) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in allowing relief on account of jewellery items worth Rs.84,53,902/- by not appreciating the fact that the assessee or his family members have never filed their wealth-tax returns, which could indicate their ownership of such jewellery items. (iv) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in allowing relief on account of cash found at the assessee's residential premises during the search action to the extent of Rs.4,93,824/- by not appreciating the fact that there was no proof that the said cash-in-hand as on 31....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....und. The valuation of these jewellery items was done by departmental registered valuer DJNESH L SALVI in the presence of two independent witnesses, I agree with the valuation report of the valuer. During the course of search at HOME, as per the Valuation report, the total Gold jewellery of 329.800 gms valued at Rs.9,42,097/-and Diamond jewellery of 14.000 gms (5.71 cts) valued at Rs.18,55,690/- were found. In the LOCKER, as per the Valuation report, the total Gold jewellery of 1446.000 grns valued at Rs.41,17,711/- and Diamond jewellery of 325.900 gms (53.60 cts) valued at Rs.17,84,054/-were found. Q,27 Please state that who is the owner of the jewellery items found at your residence? Also state, whether you and your family members file Wealth Tax Return? What is the source of the jewellery items found at your residence? Sir, the jewellery mentioned above belongs to my wife and my mother. My mother had kept few of her jewellery items with me as she considered them to be more safe here. If you will see it closely, it is ail my ancestral jewellery. Most of it was gifted to us during our marriage by my parents and grandparents and my wife's parents and grandparents. We never....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o him which was out of withdrawal from his savings bank accounts and is also duly reflected in his books of Accounts. He also submitted the consolidated balance sheet for the year ending on 31st March 31, 2016, wherein cash in hand amounting to Rs. 12,99,564/- has been shown. However, Ld. AO rejected the said explanation after observing as under:- 4.4 The reply of the assessee is considered but the same is found to be not acceptable as the assessee's own statement and reply filed during the assessment proceeding are contradictory in so far as the assessee, during the search action, had stated that the sources of this cash is basically withdraw from the company and the same is taken from the company which was meant to be adjusted against his coming month's salary, on the other hand, during the assessment proceedings the assessee submitted that the cash in hand amounting to Rs. 12,99,564/- on year ended 31 March, 2016 and the difference refers to the amount that has been spent out for business as well as personal use between the date of Balance Sheet and the date of search for household expenses but could not explain the mount which was spent for business and for household.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the family members. Therefore, the appellant's claim of the abovementioned two Jewellery items cannot be accepted. Therefore, the addition u/s.69A in respect of unexplained investment in jewellery to the extent of Rs. 1.20.224/- and Rs,1,25,426/- which comes to Rs.2,45,650/- is upheld and the appellant gets part relief of Rs. 84,53,902/- in respect of addition u/s.69A of the Act,. This ground of appeal is Partly Allowed, 8. Regarding addition of Rs. 5,04,000/- on account of alleged unexplained cash, Ld. CIT(A) has given part relief after verifying the withdrawal of regular bank account and balance sheet, which are as under:- Now, the appellant has submitted that the cash of Rs. 5,04,000/- was from the withdrawal made from his regular bank account and also the cash belonging to family members which was accumulated over the period of time. The appellant has submitted a copy of bank account in his name bearing Account No. 11050124088 held with Nariman Point Branch, HDFC Bank. The appellant has submitted a summary of withdrawal from the said bank account from 02.04.2015 to 14.05.2016. The total of withdrawal comes to Rs.11,02,000/-. 6.4 The bank account of the appellant w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be remanded back to the AO to examine and reconcile the valuation report submitted by the assessee. On the issue of unaccounted cash, he strongly relied on the order of AO. 11. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the valuation report was filed before the AO, which is evident from the assessee's explanation as incorporated in para 3.5 of the assessment order. Thus, there is no question of remanding the matter to verify the valuation report to the AO. Regarding the benefit of CBDT circular No. 1916 (supra), he said that there are plethoras of judgments of jewellery taken into account the quantity of jewellery to the family members. Therefore, to that extent, it can be safely presumed that jewelleries stated in the circular stands explained and he relied on the following judgments listed as below:- 2 15.2.1999 240 ITR 727 (Kar) Smt. Pati Devi vs. ITO 3 25.10.2013 41 taxmann.com 295 (All) CIT vs. Ghanshyam Das Johri 4 19.7.2010 339 ITR 351(Guj) CIT vs. Ratanlal vs. Yaparilal Jain 5 31.1.2014 463/Mum/2012DCIT vs. Sh. Haroon Mohd. Unni. In ITA No. 6 7.4.2014 366 ITR 325 (Raj) CIT vs. Satya Narain Patni 7 4.5.2018 170 ITD 580 (Del-Trib.) Vibhu....