TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (5) TMI 252
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rse of search ignoring the explanation and evidence and is against the facts of the case and hence liable to be deleted 2 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 37,50,000/- u/s 69B on account of painting found during the course of search, the source of which have been explained during assessment/appellate proceeding and hence liable to be deleted 3 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 1,50,000/- u/s 69B on account of wrist watch found during search, the source of which have been explained during assessment/appellate proceeding and hence liable to be deleted 4 That the appellant craves the leave to add, alter or amend the grounds of appeal at any stage all the grounds are without prejudice to each other 5. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a search and seizure operation u/s.132 of the Act was conducted on 08.06.2017. During the course of the search operation jewellery, Silver articles were found at the residence of the assessee amounting to Rs.2,64,35,029/- was seized from the premises. During the cour....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat items are not matching. It is customary amongst the married women to keep on changing the jewellery as and when new designs come in the market. The fact that needs to be considered is that the weight of the jewellery more or less remained the same though the design may change. Sometimes new stones are engraved and sometimes the engraved stones are taken out of the jewellery. However, the status of the family, the return of income of the family has to be kept in mind. 14. It would be pertinent to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of Ashok Chaddha Vs. ITO 14 taxman.com 57 wherein Hon'ble High Court has highlighted realities of life by holding as under :- (i) "Judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Ashok Chaddha (supra) wherein the Hon'ble High Court has accepted the jewellery of 906.60 grams in the case of married lady even without documentary evidence as the denying the explanation would tantamount to overlooking the realities of life by holding as under:- "As far as addition qua jewellery is concerned, during the course of search, jewellery weighing grams of the value amounting to Rs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....age and other occasions such as birth of a child. The assessee had been married more than 25-30 years and acquisition of the jewellery of 906.900 grams could not be treated as excessive. 3. Learned Counsel for the respondent on the other hand relied upon the reasoning given by the authorities below. After considering the aforesaid submissions we are of the view that addition made is totally arbitrary and is not founded on any cogent basis or evidence. We have to keep in mind that the assessee was married for more than 25-30 years. The jewellery in question is not very substantial. 'The learned counsel for the appellant/ assessee is correct in her submission that it is a normal custom for woman to receive jewellery in the form of "streedhan" or on other occasions such as birth of a child etc. Collecting jewellery of 906.900 grams by a woman in a married life of 25-30 years is not abnormal. Furthermore, there was no valid and / or proper yardstick adopted by the Assessing Officer to treat only 400 grams as "reasonable allowance" and treat the other as "unexplained". Matter would have been different if the quantum and value of the jewellery found was substantial. 4. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....21. Per contra the DR strongly supported the findings of the AO and read the operative part of the assessment order. 22. We have carefully considered the orders of the authorities below. The difference in the valuation can be seen from the chart exhibited here in above. It can be seen that the assessee has claimed to have purchased the paintings in the year 2004, 2012 and 2017 whereas the departmental valuation officer has not mentioned the year of purchase in their respective valuation report. We find that the DVO has also not pointed out any defect in the valuation report filed by the assessee nor there is any evidence on record to show that the AO has examined the valuation of the assessee. It can be seen from the two DVO's report that both the valuer of the department have valued the painting differently. This show that the opinion of the experts can also differ on the same set of facts In our considered opinion if the paintings are purchased in the year 2004 then the value cannot be added in the year under consideration more over even the department valuers have not expressed any reservations on the year of purchase shown by the valuer of the assessee, we do not find any re....