2023 (10) TMI 1056
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oner of Income Tax (Appeals) also failed to appreciate that the contents of the affidavit, inter alia, pertaining to Stridhan, furnished by the assessee before the Learned Assessing Officer were never controverted by him. 3. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) further erred in confirming the said amount ignoring the status of the assessee and the customs prevalent in the society to which the assessee belongs 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) further failed to appreciate that the learned Assessing Officer had accepted the gold portion of the jewellery found during the search but failed to accept the value of the diamonds/ precious/ semi-precious stones embedded in them. 5. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) further failed to appreciate that there is not even an iota of evidence that the assessee had invested in the said jewellery out of unexplained sources, and thus, in absence of which no addition could be made u/s 69B of the Income Tax Act. 6. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming an addition of Rs. 4,49,750 made by the assessing officer being ½ share of the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce regarding source of cash found in the locker no. L-953 was treated as unexplained money and added to the total income of the assessee as per section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Since, the locker No. L-953 was jointly hold by Smt. Jasmine Anand and Smt. Jaswinder Kaur Anand, the cash of Rs. 8,99,500/- was distributed equally between both the account holders and an amount of Rs. 4,49,750/- being 50% of total cash found and seized was added to the total income of the assessee on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on substantive basis. 6. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition. 7. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. 8. During the hearing, the ld. AR reiterated the arguments taken up before the ld. CIT(A). It was argued that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.4,49,750/- for cash found in the Locker No. L-953, without appreciating the fact that the cash was partly withdrawn from various banks and partly gifts received from relatives on different occasions and pin money. The ld. AR submitted that the assessee belongs to the ALP group of industries which is a reputed name in the market. The assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....85/- was found and seized from the locker. Further, Cash of Rs. 8,99,500/- was found & seized from the said locker No. L-953. From perusal of bank statement of the assessee, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee did not withdraw any cash from any of its bank accounts. In absence of any justification or documentary evidence regarding source of cash found in the locker no. L-953 was treated as unexplained money and added to the total income of the assessee as per the section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Since, the locker No. L-953 was jointly hold by Smt. Jasmine Anand and Smt. Jaswinder Kaur Anand, the cash of Rs. 8,99,500/- was distributed equally between both the account holders and an amount of Rs. 4,49,750/- being 50% of total cash found and seized was added to the total income of the assessee on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on substantive basis. Jewellery: 15. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.25,78,237/- on account of difference in the jewellery and Rs.16,082/- on account of unexplained bullion on protective basis, Rs.82,43,262/- on account of jewellery on protective basis and Rs.78,69,870/- on account of value of s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a series of due deliberation and its impact on taxation. It is never envisaged that the Assessing Authority should restrict the amount of eligible jewellery to the quantity mentioned in the circular. The assessee has a returned income in the range of Rs.31 lacs to Rs.42 lacs as per the returns. 22. The statement showing the incomes of the assessee is as under: Assessment Year Taxable Income Exempt Income Original ITR Acknowledgment no. 2012-2013 31,10,400.00 1,00,000.00 477884970310812 2013-2014 36,28,890.00 1,00,000.00 6878488100270713 2014-2015 37,93,410.00 1,10,000.00 27722736029-714 2015-2016 38,10,120.00 1,50,000.00 740184810290815 2016-2017 39,20,520.00 1,50,000.00 323035030280716 2017-2018 42,96,020.00 3,24,000.00 922302630250717 23. The assessee stated that the income for all the years had fallen into the highest tax bracket which shows that the assessee has been earning substantial Income clearly establishing the status. It has time and again been held that due credit of the same has to be allowed by the Assessing Officer looking and appreciating the status, customs, and traditions r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....259/DEL/2017 held as follows: "6.1 After perusing the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, I am of the considered view that facts and circumstances of the present case are similar to the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and hence, the issue in dispute is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision. 6.2 Keeping in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as the status of the family and on the anvil of the judgement of the High Court of Delhi in the case of Ashok Chadha vs. ITO reported in 14 taxmann.com 57 (Delhi.)/202 Taxman 395, the explanation given by the assessee's counsel is accepted. Accordingly the orders of the authorities below are cancelled and addition made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) amounting to Rs. 10,65,312/- on account of purported unexplained Jewellery claimed by the assessee is deleted. 7. In the result, Assessee's appeal is allowed." 26. The Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Delhi in the case of Vibhu Aggarwal vs. DCIT 93 taxmann.com 275 (Delhi - Trib.) held that where Assessing Officer under section 69A made addition on account of jewellery found in search of assessee, s....
TaxTMI