TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (3) TMI 429
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se of appellant qua assessment year under consideration u/s 115BBE in as much as provisions of section 69A have been incorrectly invoked in the case of appellant." 3. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that search and seizure proceedings were carried out at the premises of the assessee on 18.09.2016 as per warrant of authorization issued by Director General of Income-tax (Inv.). Jaipur. The assessee has filed return of income electronically on 31.10.2017 vide acknowledgement No. 281091851311017 at total income of Rs. 42,06,210/-. 3.1 The case was selected for scrutiny assessment and notice U/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act was issued on 23.08.2018 which was duly served upon the assessee. Subsequently, during the course of assessment proceedings, notices u/s. 142(1) of the Act were also issued to the assessee on requiring him to produce/explain/furnish various information as specified therein and placed on record. 3. 2 It is submitted by the assessee that he derives Salary income, also derives Interest Income from saving bank and share of profit & remuneration from partnership firm M/s. Green Tech and M/s. Green Tech Intelligent Transportation System LLP. Durin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ha Singhavi wife of the appellant. Still addition is made in the hands of the appellant. 2. With regard to addition of Rs. 19,17,692/- the appellant stated that the addition is only based on the statement and not on the basis of item- wise weighment. As per appellant in the statement the jewellery was stated to be from 700 gms to 1000 gms in reply to different questions. 3. The appellant argued that the jewellery is within the limit prescribed by the CBDT Instruction dated 11.05.1994 and source need not be explained. The appellant has also relied upon various judgements in support of his arguments. 4. As per appellant the jewellery at the time of search comes to 1051 gms out of which 950 gms is liable to be exempted. 5. Jewellery weighing 500 gms was available as per wealth tax return of Rajesh Gulabchand Singhavi (HUF). With regard to the jewellery found during the search which is in addition to the jewellery seized, para no. 4.4 of the assessment order is important. The AO mentioned that family of the assessee consists of assessee himself, his wife and as per Boards instruction credit of gold jewellery can be given only to the extent of 1300 gms only. The AO noted that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y. If the appellant was able to explain that the jewellery was acquired by wife of the appellant from her explained sources of income the assessment would have been in the hands of her wife. However, the appellant has not explained any such source of acquisition by wife of the appellant. Therefore, the assessment is correctly made in the hands of the appellant by the AO. The appellant might have acquired for his family members and credit of same has already been given as per CBDT instruction by the AO. With regard to argument that the jewellery of 700 gms is added as per statement and not as per actual weight. This figure is taken from the statement of the appellant by the AO. The statement is taken under oath and the appellant himself agreed to this figure, hence, the basis of figure is not disputable. The appellant also argued that as per appellant the jewellery at the time of search comes to 1051 gms out of which 950 gms is liable to be exempted. However, as per AO the authorized officer already considered credit of 1300 gms as per CBDT instruction. The AO has drawn conclusion on the basis of the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the appellant according to which jewellery was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Rs. 19,17,692/- is deleted. The appellant failed to explain the source of jewellery of Rs. 3,86,552/- which was seized during the search. Therefore, the jewellery is rightly taxed by the AO u/s 69A. The appellant has relied upon the judgements where excess stock found was treated as business income. However, these decisions are not applicable on the facts of the appellant as the jewellery found during the search was not business stock of the appellant. Therefore, the charging of tax u/s 115BBE by AO is found to be as per provisions of the Income Tax Act and accordingly confirmed. This ground of appeal is treated as partly allowed." 5. As the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed the assessee prefer the present appeal for the sustained addition of Rs. 3,86,552/-. In support of the ground so take the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that only 141.10 gms of jewellery was found during search and remaining jewellery is estimated at 700 gms based on the statement of assessee recorded at the time of operation of bank locker wherein assessee claimed that he had stated in statement recorded at his residence on 18- 09-2016 that jewellery of about 5 gms on the body of assessee's ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s [i.e. 700 gms + 141.10 gms], assessee is entitled to the following credits in terms of CBDT Instruction No. 1916 dated 11-05-1994 when credit for assessee's mother is not considered being having one residence at Bombay where her jewellery was claimed to be lying: Particulars Qty Jewellery disclosed in wealth tax return of assessee's HUF 500.00 Assessee 100.00 Assessee's Wife 500.00 Assessee's daughter 250.00 Assessee's son 100.00 Total 1450.00 Further, even of HUF's declared jewellery is excluded, still assessee's is entitled to credit to the extent of 950.00 Gms against which only 841.10 gms of jewellery was claimed by assessee including actual physically found jewellery of 141.10 gms. Accordingly, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that addition sustained by the ld. CIT (A) is not justified and therefore, the present appeal of the assessee. 6. Per contra, the ld. DR representing the revenue supported the finding recorded in the order of the ld. CIT (A) and submitted that assessment order passed in the case of assessee's father in law Shri Hukmichand Jain on which assessee has placed reliance in support of the contention that no credit for the jewellery of wife....