TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (12) TMI 346
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3. The record shows that on 08.06.2017, a search and seizure operation was conducted under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, "Act"] against the Minda Group at business and residential premises. 4. Insofar as the respondent/assessee is concerned, who is part of Minda Group, the search action brought to the fore articles such as jewellery, paintings and wrist watches. These articles were found at the residence of the respondent/assessee. 5. Since, according to the appellant/revenue, the source of the money concerning investment in the aforesaid articles was unexplained, additions were made qua each of these articles. 5.1. Consequently, against the returned income amounting to Rs. 14,73,30,720/-, the cumulative am....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unit in its wealth tax return was more than the jewellery found during the search action. 11.1 It was also noted by the Tribunal that the respondent/assessee had placed before the AO item-wise reconciliation of the articles mentioned in the wealth tax return, along with the valuation report prepared during the search. The Tribunal found that the AO was unable to flag any defect in reconciliation statement submitted by the respondent/assessee. It is the Tribunal's observation that a general remark had been made by the AO that there was a mismatch in the articles. 12. In our view, the Tribunal correctly made the following observations with regard to the aspect concerning mismatch in the description of the articles: "13....It is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee as also the fact that the jewellery declared and disclosed by the family in its wealth tax return was more than the jewellery found during the search operation. 14. As regards the addition made with regard to paintings, what has emerged is that not only had the respondent/assessee placed on record a valuation report, but also the appellant/revenue had the paintings valued by two valuers. 14.1. The valuation arrived at by the two valuers appointed by the appellant/revenue were Yellow Flute and Delhi Art Gallery. Evidently, Yellow Flute valued the subject six paintings at Rs. 55,85,000/-, while Delhi Art Gallery valued the said paintings at Rs. 37,50,000/-. 14.2. However, the valuer appointed by the respondent/assessee pegge....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns. Furthermore, given the fact that the valuers appointed by the appellant/revenue had not expressed any reservation with regard to the report submitted by the expert appointed by the respondent/assessee, the Tribunal held that the addition made with regard to the paintings was unmerited. 16. We are of the opinion that the Tribunal's approach, in the given facts and circumstances, cannot be faulted. Estimating the worth of an artwork can vary from expert to expert. 16.1. As indicated above, four out of five paintings were purchased, according to the respondent/assessee, in 2004; an aspect which was not contested by the valuers appointed by the appellant/revenue. 16.2. Insofar as the painting which was purchased in 2017, the invest....