2023 (10) TMI 266

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)) is contrary to the facts and bad in law. 2. That on the facts & circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the addition of Rs. 3,92,151/- made in the assessment order on account of alleged unexplained investment in jewellery and, disregarding the provision contained in Instruction No. 1916 issued by CBDT. 3. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing or before. 2. The only effective ground is against upholding the addition made in the assessment order on account of alleged unexplained investment in jewellery and not following the Instruction No. 1916 issued by CBDT 3. The facts, giving rise t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....horities below. 6. We have heard rival contentions and perused the material available on record. We find that the learned CIT(A) has sustained the addition by observing as under: "7. During the course of search jewellery worth Rs. 6,27,00,968/- were found, out of nich jewellery worth Rs. 5,26,26,425/- was seized from the search premise and locker. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer asked the appellant explain the jewellery. After considering the explanation of the appellant, the Assessing Officer did not find the explanation in respect of jewellery worth Rs. 3,92,151/- as acceptable and therefore made an addition of Rs. 3,92,151/- u/s 69A of the Act. The amount of addition included pure gold coin and ginni....