TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (6) TMI 721
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Income Tax Act, vide Para no. 4 onwards page no. (3) to (29) made an addition of Rs. 28,96,104/- on the ground that appellant during the course of recording statement surrendered a sum of Rs. 70,00,000/- whereas in the return of income appellant offer for taxation sum of Rs. 41,03,896/-, as such remaining amount of Rs. 28,96,104/- represent unexplained investment u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, and accordingly addition were made. The addition so made duly been confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeal- 2), Udaipur which bad in law, unjustified, contrary to the fact of the case, ignoring the detail submission made with fact and figure, statement of appellant and his father case law relied uponclearly speak that It is respectfully submitted the basic reason put forth by the Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeal-2), Udaipur who substantiated addition/confirmed only on the ground it is the appellant who surrendered Rs. 70,00,000/- during the course of recording statement on the record and legal preposition in law that surrender does not tantamount to taxing of surrender amount, the statement of the assessee so recorded the fact stated in the statement, material evidences whi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessee on requiring him to produce/explain/furnish various information as specified therein and placed on record. 3.1 During the course of the search, total jewellery valued at Rs. 1,11,64,994/- was found at the residence. When the assessee was confronted during statement recorded on oath u/s 132(4) of the Act, he was unable to explain the source of the jewellery. Thus, jewellery valued at Rs. 62,67,319 was seized. The assessee has admitted the jewellery valued at Rs. 70,00,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act for the year F.Y. 2016-17. To ascertain the disclosure of above unexplained money and to verify the nature and sources of investment in jewellery, a notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 16.07.2018 was issued to the assessee. In response to show cause notice, the assessee vide submission dated 17.08.2018 replied. The submission of the assessee has been considered carefully and found not acceptable at all. On perusal of return of income filed, the assessee has declared unexplained investment in jewellery to extent of Rs. 41,03,896/- only as against the total disclosure of Rs. 70,00,000/- u/s 132(4) of the Act. Thus, the assessee retracted from his admission and has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....written submissions of the appellant as against the observations/findings of the AO in the assessment order for the year under consideration. The contentions/submissions of the appellant are being discussed and decided as under:- In this case, gold and silver worth Rs. 1,11,64,998/- was found during the search. The appellant admitted during the course of search that out of this valuables worth Rs. 70,00,000/- are acquired out of its his unaccounted sources of Income. The appellant only offered Rs. 41,03,896/- for taxation in the return of income out of this surrendered amount. The appellant stated that the remaining jewellery is explained. The AO stated that there is no acceptable explanation furnished by the appellant. Therefore, the difference of Rs. 28,96,104/- is added by the AO. The appellant stated that the valuables belongs to various family members acquired on various occasion as per prevailing tradition custom in Hindu Family having regard the status of family and earning status of the family and its members. The appellant also stated that some of the gold ornaments belongs to my father and mother and parental and some of the gold ornament received by me ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wellery was found during search. The onus was on the appellant to show that the valuable items of gold and silver were acquired out of explained sources. The appellant failed to discharge the onus and therefore made surrender. Even during assessment except making averments, no sources were explained by the appellant. The jewellery declared in the wealth tax return was also less than the jewellery which was already considered as explained. The jewellery belonging to various family members is already considered by the AO in accordance with the CBDT circular. There is no evidence furnished by the appellant that the jewellery claimed to be belonging to family members was new. Therefore, the claim is to be considered out of old jewellery only. Therefore, there is no scope to give further allowance in addition to what was already considered by the AO. Therefore, the addition made by the AO is valid even without considering the surrender made in the search. The statement made by the appellant during the course of search is only a confirmation of facts. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the addition made by the AO as the addition is made on the basis of material facts recorde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the judgement. Delhi Bench dated 09.03.2018 Ritu Bajaj 63 ITR 594 (Delhi) As held in this decision, the CBDT Circular is already considered by the AO. Other facts are different from the case of the appellant. In the case of the appellant, the appellant has accepted the fact that the investment in unexplained jewellery is made out of undisclosed sources. Therefore, the AO has already complied with the contents of the judgement. ITAT Indore Bench in case of Alankar Jewellers dated 1.09.2021 The facts of that case decided by the ITAT, Indore were entirely different. The case was of a jewellery trader and the excess jewellery was found which was not recorded in the books of accounts. In the case of the appellant the jewellery is found at home and it is not claimed and proved to be recorded in the books of accounts. The appellant could not explain the source of investment therefore, surrender was made by the appellant. Therefore, the facts of this case are different. The decision relied upon by the appellant is not found to be applicable on the facts of the case. In view of the above discussion, the addition made by the AO of Rs. 28,96,104/-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent year 1992-93 shown gold ornament and silver. 103-106 13. Computation of Wealth Tax Ram Sahary Surajmal HUF, Chhotisadari for the assessment year 1992-93 showing silver 15 Kg. and Gold ornament 700 Gram 107-109 14. Will of Smt. Chandra Wati bai W/o Shri Suraj Mal Ji Agarwal executed on 05.01.1995 110-112 15. Photo copy of the decision of Income Tax Tribunal Allahabad Bench Allahabad Appeal No. 573/Alld/2014 assessment year 2010-11 dated 05.01.2023 total pages 1 to 31 & Jaipur bench Shree Ram Balji. 113-143 & 114-158 16. Written submission on the point of retraction of statement of Gold ornament and jewellery 159-163 17. Power of Attorney in favour of G.K. Gargieya ITP 164 5.1 The ld. AR of the assessee in respect of the ground No. 1 raised by the assessee submitted that though the assessee has disclosed a sum of Rs. 70,00,000/- during the course of search and seizure but based on the calculations filed at page 97 of the assessee's paper book, the correction amount justified and disclosed for an amount Rs. 41.03,895/- made in the return of income by the assessee. The relevant basis upon which the assessee offered a sum of Rs. 41,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on the various fact and information placed before him by search partyvoluntarily surrendered a sum of Rs. 70,00,000/- and therefore, making a retraction thereafter is not correct and therefore, the finding of the lower authorities should be sustained. As regards the cash addition of Rs. 2,00,000/-, the ld. DR submitted that the same is not recorded and whatever relief for which the assessee is eligible has already been granted to the assessee by the lower authorities. Thus, she supported the orders of the ld. AO and ld. CIT(A). 7. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material placed on record.The bench noted that in this appeal the assessee has raised two issues one is in relation to the addition on account of Gold and Silver Jewellery and another in respect of the cash found. The brief fact related to the disputed is that the search and seizure proceedings were carried out at the premises of the assessee on 16.09.2016 as per warrant of authorization issued by Director General of Income-tax (Inv.), Jaipur. The assessee filed the returned income u/s. 153A comprises of the additional income of Rs. 41,03,896/- on account of unexplained investment in jewellery and Rs. 18....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing officer before the ld. CIT(A) but the assessee did not succeeded. As regards the addition of jewellery the ld. CIT(A) noted the jewellery was found in search. The onus on the assessee to show that the items of gold and silver were acquired out of the explained sources. The jewellery declared in the wealth tax return was less then the jewellery found the ld. AO has given the credit of jewellery as per CBDT guidelines and therefore the ld. CIT(A) hold that the addition made by the ld. AO is valid and therefore, the addition of Rs. 28,96,104 was sustained. As regards the cash of Rs. 5,41,400/- the assessee claimed that a sum of Rs. 2,41,400/- was belonging to Agrotech India Limited which was treated as explained and out of balance 4 lac the ld. CIT(A) has considering the size and stature of family considering Rs. 2 lac out of savings and sustained the addition of Rs. 2 lac. 8. Before us the ld. AR of the assessee submitted a reconciliation chart justifying the claim of the revenue and the contention of the assessee as to why the assessee out of the disclosure of Rs. 70,00,000/- offered a sum of Rs. 41,03,896/-. On the combined reading of the chart reproduced at para 5.1 with th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m sum as unexplained investment which we do not found correct and the working which is based on the evidence and guidelines of the CBDT cannot be ignored and therefore, we direct the ld. AO to delete the addition of Rs. 28,96,104/- made in the assessment order. In terms of the discussion so recorded the ground no. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed. 9. As regards the ground no. 2 which is related to the addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- sustained by the ld. CIT(A) out of the total cash of Rs. 5,41,000/- found from the premises searched. The bench noted at the time of search the assessee was confronted about the source of cash found for an amount of Rs. 5,41,000/-. Wherein the assessee while answering the question no. 35 submitted that Rs. 1,50,000/- belong to M/s. Sarvodaya Agrotech India Limited. The ld. AO considering the submission of the assessee and made the addition of Rs. 3 lac in the hands of the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) sustained the addition of Rs. 2 lac though he has hold that the assessee may be considered to have savings of Rs. 2 lac considering the stature and payment of wealth tax even in past but while doing so out of the total addition of Rs. 3 lac he sustained the ad....