TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (1) TMI 1583
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hort facts apropos are that during a search conducted on 05-01- 2001 in the premises of one Sri S.P. Sanjai, certain quantity of gold jewellery was found of which 1209 gms. was stated to be belonging Smt.S.P. Geetha, the assessee here. Smt. S.P. Geetha is the mother of Shri S.P.Sanjai. As per the AO on actual weighment, the jewellery claimed to be been belonged to the assessee came to 1201.7 grams of gold and 17carets of diamonds. Assessee was required to explain. Assessee through her letter dated 03-10-2002 stated that she owned 925 grams of gold jewellery and 12 ct. diamond jewellery only. For 925 gms., explanations were also given which was accepted by the AO except for 300 gms. Explanation of the assessee vis-à-vis 12 carets of d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lery, AO found that the assessee had herself admitted and explained only 12 cts., leaving a balance of 5 carets unexplained. In the result, the unaccounted investment in the said jewellery was valued at ₹ 3,64,705/- and addition made., 3. In her appeal before the CIT(A) contention of the assessee was that assessee never claimed ownership of 1201.70 gms of gold and 17 ct. of diamond jewellery. According to the assessee, there was no sworn statement recorded from her on the date of search viz. 05-01-2001. Further, as per the assesse, the first statement was recorded from the assessee on 27-02-2001, wherein she had stated that she owned only 925 gms. of gold jewellery and 12 cts. of diamond jewellery. Argument of the assessee was that b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing the order of the CIT(A) submitted that the purchase of 300m gms. of gold jewellery alleged to have been made out of ₹ 2 lakhs received by the assessee from her sons were not proved. According to him, there was no evidence whatsoever for the purchase of jewellery nor for the sum of ₹ 1 lakh each received by the assessee from her sons. Ld. DR also submitted that the assessee was bound to explain 1201.7 gms. gold jewellery and 17 ct. of diamond jewellery, stated by her son Shri S.P. Sanjai, at the time of search as belonging to the assessee, and not 925 gms. of gold jewellery and 12 ct. of diamond. In other words, according to him, the addition made by the AO was justified and CIT(A) without any evidence had brought down such a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he time of search on 05-01-2001. When a statement was taken on a later date viz. 27-02-2001, assessee affirmed ownership of 925 gms. of gold jewellery and 12 carets of diamond jewellery only. Assessee had thus all along stated that she was having 925 gms. of gold jewellery and 12 cts. of diamond jewellery only. In our opinion, there was no evidence with the Revenue to fasten the ownership of anything more than the declared quantity on the asserssee or to come to a conclusion that assessee owned anything more than what was stated by her. Thus, in our opinion, assessee was bound to explain only 925 grms. of gold and 12 cts. of diamond jewellery. Out of this explanation vis-à-vis 12 carets of diamond and 625 gms. of gold jewellery was f....