AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 185
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....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 as on facts in enhancing the income of the Appellant ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ls), 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 jewellery belonged to one Mrs. Sakshi Kaura w/o Shri Puneet Kaura, which was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at 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 Pg. 2 Para 5. Further the Ld. CIT(A) also preferred to give assessee and his family together the relief of Rs.23,00,000/- in terms of the CBDT Circular....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 without confronting with the real owner of the jewellery he, in an arbitrary manner, made the addition. Before the Assessing Authority it was stated that the jewellery found in the locker belonged to third party.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 the case, Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kanpur, has erred in disposing the appeal on the ground of 'loan against pledged of the jewellary' which was not raised in the appeal. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, or va....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve 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 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 wit....