2011 (1) TMI 1582

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Pursuant to this order, this appeal was posted for hearing today for the limited purpose of hearing the issue relating to this addition. When the appeal was taken up, for ld. DR submitted that what was left out for adjudication by the Tribunal was ground No.3 relating to an addition made towards un explained jewellery which was restricted by the CIT(A) to Rs. 1,03,378/-. 2. Short facts apropos are that there was a search proceedings conducted in the premises of one Shri R.V.Deshmukh alongwith that of the premises of the assessee and his brother Shri S.P.Karthik on the basis of the warrant dated 17-11-20200. Subsequent to the search, block assessment proceedings were initiated against the assessee. Return for the block period was filed by....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s marriage As per Q.No.2 of sworn statement dt. 27-02-2001 400 10 Parents-in-law Two sons birthdays As per Q.No.2 of sworn statement dt. 27-02-2001 80 1 Parents-in-law Wife's valaikappu As per Q.No.2 of sworn statement dt. 27-02-200 32 .. Parents S.P.Sanjai's marriage As per Q.No.3 of sworn statement dt.27-02-2001 320 12 Friends and relatives S.P.Sanjai's marriage As per Q.No. 4 of sworn statement dt. 27-02-2001 40 .. Mother Two sons birthdays As per Q.No.5 of sworn statement dt. 27-02-2001 48 .. .. Purchases during 1998-99 As per Q.No. 8 of sworn statement dt. 27-02-2001 40 .. .. Purchases from 7/2000 to 5-012001 As per Q.No.8 of swo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....As per the assessee, some part of the gold and diamond jewellery earlir stated as belonging to his mother Smt. S.P. Geetha actually belonged to his wife. It was explained by the assessee that he was having possession of ancestral jewellery received from his grand parents namely Sri M.K. Rajagopaliar, Smt.S.R. Thangamani Ammal. Further, according to the assessee such gold jewellery possessed by his forefathers were shown in the Estate Duty and Wealth-tax assessments of the respective person. Assessee's argument was that 2432.40 gms. of gold and 40.75 ct. of diamond jewellery were received from forefathers. It was brought to the notice of CIT(A) that a letter was filed before AO alongwith evidence for possession of such jewellery by late S.R.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... gms. and 15 ct. of diamond jewellery out of 40.75 ct. as received from the forefathers. For the 300 gms. considered by the AO as purchases for which no evidence was filed, ld.CIT(A) was of the opinion that these were explained by the assessee as to have been made out of advance money of Rs. .50 lakhs received by him, for sale of a property. In the result, against the gold jewellery of 1035.900 gms. and diamonds of 17.05 carets, 900 gms. and 15 carets respectively were considered as explained by the Ld. CIT(A), leaving a balance of 135.90 grams of gold jewellery and 2.05 carets of diamond jewellery. Result was that addition to the extent of 135.900 grams of unexplained gold jewellery and 2.05 ct. of diamond jewellery were sustained by the l....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....im for explaining purchase of 300 grms. gold jewellery. In other words, according to him, CIT(A) was well justified in restricting the addition towards unexplained gold jewellery of 135.90 gms. and unexplained diamond jewellery of 2.05 caret. 7. We have perused the orders and heard the rival submissions. AO after examining assessee's explanation for 1751.95 grms, of gold jewellery and 35.05 ct. of diamond jewellery, as belonging to his wife Smt.Kaladevi, had accepted such explanation to the extent of 1000 gms, and 23 ct. respectively, leaving a balance of 751.95 grms. of gold and 12.05 ct. of diamond jewellery. As per the CIT(A), the quantum of jewellery to be explained was 1035.95 gms, of gold and 17.05 carets of diamond against 751.95 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lery of 40.75 carets were reflected in the Estate Duty and Wealth-tax assessments of the mentioned persons, which position is mentioned by the CIT(A) at page 24 of his order and not rebutted by the Revenue. However, in our opinion, just because the forefathers of the assessee were having jewellery in their custody, it could not mean that all such jewellery would have been received by the assessee and his brother. Assessee alongwith his brother could have in all probability received some part thereof, but to presume that the whole of it would have come to them is fallacious. Even if we presume that the forefathers all along held all the jewellery and gave it away to the assessee and his brother, they could have received is 1216.23 grams gold....