TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (10) TMI 1601
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,93,642/- even though the assessee failed to explain the source of investment in jewellery seized during search. 3. In the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- towards unexplained deposits in the foreign bank account without giving any reasons for relief and without allowing opportunity to the Assessing officer. 4. In the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.2,80,000/- towards unexplained foreign tour expenses without any reasons for relief and without allowing opportunity to the Assessing officer. 5. In the f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....duly explained by the appellant before my predecessor and the ITAT. The jewellery listed at item no. (a) weighing 808.25 gms (c) 251.06 gms and (d) 845 gms stands fully explained by documentary evidence. As far as jewellery aggregating 364.700 gms listed at Sl. No. (b) and (e) are concerned, I feel that the appellant must have received some jewellery at the birth of her son on 23.8.1992 and various other occasions like marriage anniversary and birthday etc. I estimate the receipt of such jewellery at 250 gms. I hereby direct the assessing officer to compute the value of unexplained jewellery at 114 gms and recomputed the addition accordingly on the prevailing jewellery rate on the date of search. Thus the appeal on this ground is partly all....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th ground of appeal is against the addition of Rs. 3 lacs on account of unexplained investment in equity shares/ debentures. It is observed from the seized document that the appellant owned the under noted shares on the date of search:- NAME OF THE SHARES QTY. RATE TOTAL Asean Brown 14 Included in wealth tax return ICICI 80 Included in wealth tax return Modi Alkalies 350 19 6650 Nova Steel &....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... lacs stood in a joint bank account with her husband who is the primary holder of the account. The account has been owned by the husband and an addition of Rs. 50 lacs has been made in the assessment of her husband. Relying on the fact, the husband being the primary holder of the account the addition has been retained in his hands and deleted in the hands of the assessee being a second who is a joint holder. Thus the addition of Rs. 50 lacs including the impugned Rs. 25 lacs stands taxed in the hands of the husband. Therefore, CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition in the hands of the assessee. 4.2. Apropos fourth ground, the entire foreign travel expenditure has been owned and explained by the husband of the assessee and an additi....