Just a moment...

Report
FeedbackReport
Bars
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2022 (9) TMI 1268

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o as Act) dated 28/12/2019 by the ld. Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax Central Circle-8(4), Mumbai.(hereinafter referred to as ld. AO). 2. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in upholding the addition of Rs.7,39,440/- made by the ld. AO in respect of jewellery seized during the course of search, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. However, the ld. AR of the assessee had filed written submissions and had also filed a letter stating that the appeal may be decided based on the written submissions available on record. Hence, we proceeded to dispose of this appeal based on the written submissions of the ld. AR and on hearing the ld. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of post search proceedings, the assessee filed a letter in the office of DDIT (Investigation) Unit-6(1) Mumbai on 08/08/2018 along with VDIS certification and valuation report dated 23/12/1997 done for the purpose of VDIS 97 stating that all the gold / diamond jewellery found from residence / lockers and valued by the various Government approved valuer is fully explained and supported by necessary documents / evidences and requested for release of jewellery seized during the search action. The searched party obtained an independent valuation report from the Government approved registered valuer and obtained a reconciliation report dated 31/08/2018 with respect to the reconciliation of jewellery of Shri Prakash Shah and Smt. Varsha Shah that....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ew the attention of valuation report dated 31/08/2018 issued by the department valuer where the change can be seen from the attached comparison sheet vis a vis valuation report. It was also explained that the total difference in diamond jewellery was only 0.53 carats i.e.16.44 minus 15.91, which is very very insignificant and may arise due to weighing difference and judgement of valuer which varies from valuer to valuer. The assessee also pointed that some more jewellery were also disclosed by him under Income Disclosure Scheme (IDS 2016). The ld AO however, did not heed to these contentions and proceeded to make an addition towards diamond jewellery treating it as unexplained in the sum of Rs.12,23,062/-, which was deleted by the ld. CIT(A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g practice followed, considering the stature of the assessee, to offer gifts in the form of gold coins at the time of marriage. Moreover, we find that there are two adult ladies in the family i.e. assessee's wife and assessee's daughter (who got recently married). The ld. AR had pleaded in his written submissions that the value of addition towards gold coins constitute 2.16% of the gold and diamond jewellery found at the time of search which is insignificant compared to the stature of the assessee. Moreover, we find that assessee had disclosed substantial amount of time and gold jewellery in VDIS 97 itself. During the intervening period of 22 years it is very likely that the household ladies resorting to change the old jewellery to be in tu....