TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 185
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....04/Del/2022. ITA No. 2204/Del/2022 (A.Y. 2018-19): 2. This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Kanpur-4, dated 13.07.2022, pertaining to the assessment year 2018-19. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: "1. That having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case, Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kanpur, has erred in law as well as on facts by disposing the appeal without appreciating the facts correctly and also without providing proper opportunity of being heard. 2. That having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case, Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kanpur, has erred in law as well....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d against this the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(Appeals), who partly reduced the addition and sustained the addition to the extent of Rs. 12,19,905/-. Aggrieved against this, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the assessee vehemently argued that the authorities below were not justified in making the addition and sustaining the same. Learned counsel submitted that the assessee was also covered by the Department in respect of search conducted at Samtel Group on 18.1.2018. Before the authorities below it was stated that jewellery amounting to Rs. 44,53.226/- found at the residence of the assessee was kept in a plastic box separately and it was stated that this je....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mount. The stand of the assessee all along before the Ld. AO as well as the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] was that the batch of jewellery amounting to Rs.44,53,226/- belonged to a relative of the assessee and was not his own. The Ld. CIT(A) accepted the contention of the assessee that jewellery amounting to Rs.44,53,226/- belonged to some other person, viz., Smt. Sakshi Kauara and preferred to delete the same. Findings of the Ld. CIT(A) are at Pg. 15, Para 6.7 of his order. Still the CIT(A) has confirmed the addition of Rs.12.19,905/-, CIT(A)'s order Pg. 18, Para 6.9, which in the first place was not added by the A.O. himself, who had given a categorical finding in this regard in his order at P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....011, dt. 21.10.2016, Delhi High Court 3. Haroon Mohd. Vs. ITO, ITA 463/M/2012, dt. 31.01.2014 Even otherwise, as per the statement of Shri Sunil Sethi as reproduced by the Ld. CIT(A) at Pg. 16 of his order, the jewellery belonged to Smt. Dolly Sethi. However, no such addition was made in her hand." 5. On the other hand learned DR opposed the submissions and supported the orders of the authorities below. 6. I have heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The Assessing Officer made the impugned addition on account of unexplained jewellery. The objection of the assessee regarding the said addition is that the Assessing Officer failed to consider the explanation offered by the assessee and wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce against sale of immovable property. 3. That having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case, Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kanpur, has erred in law as well as on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 7,33,580/- made u/s 69A on account of unexplained jewellary found at the time of search. 4. That having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case, Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kanpur, has erred in law as well as on facts in enhancing income of the Appellant by Rs. 12,19,905/- without interpreting CBDT instruction no. 1916 in right sprit and also without appreciating financial/social status of the family. 5. That having regards to the facts and circumstances of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted that a sum of Rs. 3,31,200/- belonged to the company namely M/s Dolsun Containers Pvt. Ltd. in which the assessee was a director. The agreement to sell is also placed on record. Considering the same I am of the considered view that this evidence ought to have been considered and same could not be brushed aside. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 3,31,200/- out of Rs. 5,00,000/- in respect of cash found during the course of search is deleted. Remaining addition is sustained. 14. Now coming to the issue raised in ground nos. 3, 4 & 5, identical issue was also raised in the case of Shri Udai Sethi, wherein considering the submissions I have decided the issue by observing as under: "6. I have heard rival submissions and perused the ....