AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1440
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....zed vide exhibit-6 seized from residence of assessee situated at D-275, Todarmal Marg, Banipark, Jaipur and taxing the same as per provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. It is contented that: - (i) the addition was made solely & merely relying on the unreliable and nonspeaking documents seized during search proceeding. (ii) the addition was made by ignoring the fact that the diary was containing the rough & memorandum notings regarding the expenses of household nature. The ld. AO made the addition by considering the rough and deaf & dumb jottings as speaking documents. (iii) the addition was made by ignoring the fact that the seized document, on the basis of which the addition was made, was being maintained by the wife of assessee Smt. Suman Dugar and thus the addition on the basis of noting made by wife of the assessee cannot be made in the hands of the assessee, more so when there is no evidence that the noted transaction pertaining to the assessee. (iv) the addition was made without taking into consideration that that the amount noted in seized documents are in the nature of Household expenses and the same incurred by the assessee group out ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2 The appellant prays for leave to Add, to amend, to delete, or modify all or any grounds of appeal on or before the hearing of appeal." A.Y. 2020-21 (ITA No. 974/JPR/2025) "1 On the facts, in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in not annulling the assessment order more so when the assessment proceeding completed u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act was bad in law, void-ab-initio, and deserves to be annulled for the reasons that i) The assessment order passed by the ld. assessing Officer is arbitrary, whimsical, capricious, perverse, against the law and principal of natural justice. (ii) the assessment order passed by Ld. A.O., demand notice issued by Ld. A.O. and approval given by Joint Commissioner of Income Tax do not contain the DIN and approval u/s 153D was not given as per law and also in mechanical manner without providing opportunity of hearing. 2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 41,48,824/- u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and on a/c of alleged undisclosed investment in alleged excess/unexplained jewellery found during the course of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ddition was made, was being maintained by the wife of assessee Smt. Suman Dugar and thus the addition on the basis of noting made by wife of the assessee cannot be made in the hands of the assessee, more so when there is no evidence that the noted transaction pertaining to the assessee. iv) the addition was made without taking into consideration that that the amount noted in seized documents are in the nature of Household expenses and the same incurred by the assessee group out of withdrawals made for household expenses. Therefore, addition of the same cannot be made. (v) the submission and evidences filed by the assessee during the course of assessment proceeding were not taken into consideration and the same were not proved to be false, thus such submission and evidences filed during assessment proceeding cannot be brushed aside. 5 The appellant prays for leave to Add, to amend, to delete, or modify all or any grounds of appeal on or before the hearing of appeal." 3. The Ground No 1 in AY 2014-15 and AY 2015-16 and Ground No 4 in AY 2020-21 are against household expenses and common in these appeals are inter related and on identical facts except the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of appeal. Therefore, this ground of appeal is dismissed as not pressed. 6. In grounds No. 2 of the appeal for AY 2020-21 (ITA No 974/JPR/2025), the assessee has challenged the addition of Rs. 41,48,824/- made u/s 69A of the Act on account of alleged undisclosed Jewellery found during the course of search. 6.1 The finding of Ld. AO, in the light of which the addition was made in at Page 9-10 of the assessment order, which is as under: - "The submission of the assessee is considered but not found tenable because the assessee could not produce the source of the jewellery found at various premises during the search proceedings. Further the provisions of the section 69A are very explicit which reads as under: "Where in any financial year the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewelry or other valuable article and such money, bullion, jewelry or valuable article is not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of acquisition of the money, bullion, jewelry or other valuable article, or the explanation offered by him is not, in the op....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld jewellery was treated as explained on account of receipt of jewellery by individuals at times of birth, marriage and other auspicious occasions and ancestral jewellery. For the remaining jewellery of Rs. 41,48,824/- weighing a total of 1334.141 gms, during the course of search none of the family members of the assessee could give any explanation for the same. Now later on during the assessment proceedings as well as appellate proceedings the assessee has submitted that the source of some of the jewellery is as below:- 2.2 Explanation of Jewellery found given during the course of search: - S. No. Name of the person to whom Jewellery belongs Net Weight of Gold Jewellery (In Gms) 1. Received at the time of birth, marriage and other auspicious occasions and ancestral (Entitlement as per board instruction No. 1916, dated 11.05.1994) Shri Kesari Singh Dugar 100.00 Smt. Sampat Dugar 500.00 Shri Vinay Dugar 100.00 Smt. Suman Dugar 500.00 Kumari Pragya 250.00 Master Shriyansh 100.00 Shri Vikash Dugar 100.00 Smt. Sweta Dugar 500.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gms of inventory of Jewellery found from locker No. 537, Syndicate Bank. 550.39 Availability of Jewellery with assessee group which should be considered as explained 5,655.77 During the search proceedings in none of the statements recorded the above position of source of jewellery was claimed. The initial statements recorded during the course of the search proceedings reflect and bring on record the actual initial version of the assessee giving broad contours of the actual position vis-à-vis the memory lane and practical reality. Nowhere during the search proceedings, any such claim was made or any such evidence found. During the course of the appellate proceedings pending before me the appellant has relied on sworn affidavits claiming receipt of jewellery from family members/relatives and on account of VDIS declaration by Smt. Shweta Dugar. Now this situation has to be seen in a holistic position. For the total jewellery found of 4820.055 gms, the appellant is giving explanation of 2205.70 gms on these five receipts as discussion above, meaning almost 45% of the jewellery found at home was on account of this explanation of receipt from family mem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ir statement, I find it rather surprising that for the total jewellery found in the search proceedings she did not mention the VDIS fact and the consequent explanation. Moreover, apart from the perusal of the VDIS form it is seen that the name mentioned is Miss Sweta PremchandGoliya and in the column PAN/GIR Wd 24(2)/ 2243-S is mentioned and no other supporting document has been given by the appellant to correlate that this VDIS document pertains to Mrs. Shweta Dugar, it is also noticed that while in the appellate /proceedings the spelling is Shweta but in the VDIS certificate submitted the spelling is Sweta and so cannot be considered to be belonging to appellant's wife for want of any other supportive evidence on this. Moreover the claim is not supported further by any Wealth Tax Return of Mrs. Shweta Dugar that she was holding this jewellery. Wealth tax returns would have become due on this but no such evidence/document has been given by the appellant in support of this claim. So, this justification does not merit consideration for explanation of unexplained jewellery. In the light of the above factual matrix and discussion thereon, I find that this ground of appeal is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o. 137, SBI Bank, NRI Branch, Ajmer Road, Jaipur in name of Suman Dugar and Vinay Dugar (Inventory at PB page 14-15) 927.900 32,94,432 462.701 16,45,1 5 Locker No. 73, ICICI Bank, Pareek College Branch, Jaipur in name of VikasDugar and Shweta Dugar (Inventory at PB page 17) 1323.32 39,17,183 368.300 10,95,3 6 Locker No. 30, Syndicate Bank, Subhash Marg Branch, C-Scheme, Jaipur name of Smt Sampat Dugar(Inve ntory at PB page 18) 554.240 17,42,560 0.00 0.00 7 Locker No. 123, SBI Bank, NRI Branch, Ajmer Road, Jaipur 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8 Locker No. 39, SBI Bank, NRI Branch, Ajmer Road, Jaipur in name of Vikas Dugar and Shweta Dugar (Inventory at PB page 20) 5.690 19,824 0.00 0.00 Total 4,984.78 1,60,73,459 1334.141 41,48,824 Out of total 4984.78 gram, the search party seized the jewellery weighing 1334.141 gram, which the ld AO treated as unexplained and balance jewellery 3650.639 giving credit according to CBDT circular was treated as explained. b) Explanation of Jewellery found given during the course of search: - All the below mentioned family members are li....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... No. 13 weighing 8 gms of inventory of inventory of Jewellery found from locker No. 18, ICICI Bank).The copy of will, which filed during assessment proceeding is at PB Page 201 to 203/Vol -2). 318.06 Smt. Suman Dugar and Shri Vinay Dugar 5. Received to Smt. Suman Dugar and Shri Vinay Dugar as per will dated 15.11.2016 of Late Smt. Sajjan Bai Mehta (grand mother of Smt. Suman Dugar) (Item at S. No. 1 weighing 126.95 gms, S. No. 6 weighing 38.06 gms of inventory of Jewellery found from locker No. 137, SBI, NRI Branch and out of item at S. No. No. 2 weighing 56 gms, item No. 4 weighing 72.45 gms of inventory of Jewellery found from locker No. 18, SBI, NRI Branch). The copy of will, which filed during assessment proceeding is at PB Page 204 to 206 /Vol -2). 293.46 Smt. Suman Dugar and Shri Vinay Dugar 6. Received by Shri Kesari Singh Dugar from his brother Shri U. S. Dugar as per agreement dated 07.09.1990 and 16.05.2011. The copy of agreement, which filed during assessment proceeding is at PB Page 207 to 210. 18 gold Ginni weighing 144 gms, which later on converted into Jewellery in FY 2017-18 (Copy of bill of remaking and ledger a/c from books of account, whic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee group first time experienced the search proceeding and it is obvious that the atmosphere at the time of search always be tensed, thus the assessee instantly could not find out the record and could not recall the exact details. Further, if something for some reason could not produce before search party does not mean that the same was not available more so when there is no adverse finding regarding to the documents submitted by the assessee. It is also pertinent to mention here that the Income Tax department carried out intensive search over the assessee and during the course of search not single evidence was found that during the year under consideration the assessee or his family members purchased any Jewellery. a) Statement dated 29.06.2019 of Shri Kesari Singh Dugar recorded at residence (Q. No. 17 to 19) PB page 94-97/ Vol -1: - b) Statement dated 29.06.2019 of Smt. Suman Dugar recorded at residence (Q. No. 29) PB page 112/Vol-1: - c) Statement dated 25.07.2019 of Smt. Rakhi Dugar recorded at locker No. 537, Syndicate Bank, Subhash Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Q. No. 8 to 10) PB page 117-119/Vol-1:- d) Statement dated 25.07.2019 of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 41.280 32.230 23.560 20.000 27.680 Total 415.860 Grams In support of this claim the sworn affidavit of Smt. Usha Devi Dugar was also submitted (Copy of affidavit at PB Page 197/Vol-2), which remained uncontroverted or unexamined. Neither any inquiry was made by Ld. A.O from Smt. Usha Devi Dugar nor the contents of the affidavits were proved as vague. It is an admitted position of the law that the contents of affidavits, which are not vague, should be accepted correct. Reliance is placed on the following decisions: - (i) Mehta Parikh & Co v CIT [1958] 30 ITR 181 (SC) S.143(3): Assessment - Affidavit - When a statement is given in affidavit the same is proved to be correct unless proved otherwise. (ii) Daulat Ram Rawatmull v. CIT (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC). Once an affidavit is furnished, it should be presumed to be a correct statement of facts. If these facts are to be controverted, either the deponent must be examined or evidence contrary to facts must be led. In the absence of these the affidavits could not be ignored. (iii) Shri Nirmal Kumar Kedia V/s DCIT (Vice-Versa) 2019 (6) TMI....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....so transferred to him at the same time. On this point, the only material available on the record is the affidavit which was filed by the assessee before the Income-tax Officer. The assessee in his affidavit, had definitely stated that the purchaser wanted to purchase both the going concerns, the Jaswant Sugar Mills and the Straw Board Mills Ltd., together and one of his conditions of purchase was that all the shares of Lala Jaswant Rai, his sons and other relatives had to be transferred to the purchaser. The Income tax Appellate Tribunal rejected this affidavit of the assessee on the mere ground that there was no documentary evidence in corroboration in the form of any correspondence of otherwise on this point. Shri G.S. Pathak contended rightly before us that the Tribunal was not entitled to reject the affidavit on this point on such a ground. After the assessee had filed the affidavit, he was neither cross-examined on that point, nor was he called upon to produce any documentary evidence. Consequently, the assessee was entitled to assume that the Income-tax authorities were satisfied with the affidavit as sufficient proof on this point. If it was not to be accepted as a sufficien....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs and at the time of search, she was out of Jaipur so her statements at the time of search were not recorded, therefore no question arises to saying that she could not recall the jewellery declared in VDIS at the time of search. Ld CIT(A) further held that Mrs. Sweta Dugar has not filed any wealth tax return and jewellery declared in VDIS was not declared in wealth tax return. In this regard we submit that Wealth Tax Act abolished from AY 2016-17. b.3) 318.06 gram Jewellery received from will of Shri Dhanpat Lal Mehta - Grand father of Suman Dugar (wife of assessee) and 293.46 gram from Smt Sajjan Bai Mehta - Grand mother of wife of assessee. The Jewellery weighing 611.52 gms was received as per will of Shri Dhanpat Lal Mehta (318.06 Gms) and Smt. Sajjan Bai Mehta (293.46 gms (grand mother of wife of assessee) and the same is supported by will of both the persons (Copy of will with death certificate is at PB Page 201 to 203 and 204 to 206 respectively). The will is executed on the stamp paper, witnessed by the independent persons and also notarized by the notary public. The Ld. A.O. did not make the inquiry from the witness of the will and without assigning any r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....after thought or back dated. The Ld. A.O. did not make the inquiry from the witness of the will or Notary Public and without assigning any reason rejected the same. The details of jewellery received from Shri Umed Singh Dugar is as under :- S. No. Name of the person from whom received Item No. Inventory at PB page Net Weight of Gold Jewellery (In Gms) Received by Shri Kesari Singh Dugar from his brother Shri U. S. Dugar as per agreement dated 07.09.1990 and 16.05.2011. Found from locker No. 73, ICICI Bank, Jaipur Found from locker No. 537, Syndicate Bank, Jaipur 5 6 11 1 6 17 17 17 12 12 143.000 90.000 80.000 43.390 50.000 (v) The documentary evidence filed in support of explanation of the assessee cannot be rejected or brush aside only on the basis of surmises and conjecture. The Ld. A.O. completed the assessment by strictly allowing the credit of the Jewellery as per the CBDT Instruction 1916 dated 11.05.1994. The minimum Qty. as mentioned in the CBDT instruction No. 1916 is not the sacrosanct and this instruction considering th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ound during the search and seizure action. The said quantity of jewellery is duly recorded in the balance sheet/ books of account of the assessee and his family members. Once the AO has not disputed the purchases made by the assessee of the said quantity of jewellery then the same cannot be treated as unexplained jewellery of the assessee. The AO has denied the benefit of the said quantity of jewellery on the ground that since the benefit of reasonable jewellery to the extent of 850 gms. as per CBDT Instruction No. 1916 dated 1105-1994 is already granted, therefore, to that extent, no further benefit can be granted. It is pertinent to note that CBDT Instruction No. 1916 dated 11-05-1994 has explained in case of gold jewellery found in the possession of the assessee during the course of search and seizure action and the assessee is not able to explain the same then the quantity prescribed under the said CBDT Instruction No. 1916 in respect of married female member, unmarried female member and male member of the assessee would be treated as a reasonable holding of jewellery on account of acquisition of that much jewellery on various occasions of marriages, other social & customary oc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elete the addition of Rs. 41,48,824/- made by ld. A.O. and confirmed by ld CIT(A) as the same is unwarranted and deserve to be deleted. 6.4 Per contra, the ld. DR submitted that there is no infirmity in the Assessment orders passed by ld AO. He relied upon the findings made by ld. CIT(A). The ld. DR submitted that the assessee has stated nothing in search statement about the documents later on submitted by the assessee during the course of assessment. Therefore, no reliance should be placed on these documents filed before the ld AO. Further, the assessee has not filed the balance sheet disclosing the jewellery. Therefore, the addition made by the ld. AO deserves to be sustained. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. We noted the Income Tax department carried out search over the assessee and his family members on 28.06.2019 and onward. During the course of search, the Jewellery was found from the residence of the assessee as well as from various bank lockers in name of assessee and his family members. The assessee is living in joint family consisting his father-mother, Taiji, family of three brothers in the house and the bank lock....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llery was treated as unexplained and added to income of assessee considering the same as undisclosed investment of assessee. The ld AO has not considered the documentary evidences filed by the assessee and rejected the same without pointing out defects therein. It was submitted by the assessee that during the course of search statement of various family members were recorded and none of them has stated that they have purchased the jewellery from undisclosed sources. Rather all the persons said the jewellery so found is pertains to family of the assessee/ishtridhan of ladies/ supported by documents and which will be submitted later on. The assessee submitted that in respect of jewellery found in excess to board instruction he was required to prove the source of the same, which has been done by the assessee by filing the admissible documents but the ld AO and Ld CIT(A) disregarded the same without pointing out any defects therein. Upon perusal the entire facts of the case and also material placed on record it is clear that the while considering the source of Jewellery found during search, Ld. A.O. restricted to her up-to board instruction and Jewellery found over and above to that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... never raised any query to assessee and opportunity to explain the alleged discrepancy in name was not given. The ld AR submitted that the search party has wrongly spelled the name by writing Shewta as against Sweta in the inventory prepared by them (Copy at PB page 20-21). The ld AR submitted copy of her passport and adhar card before the Bench, and we noted that in the passport the name is spelled as Sweta and husband's name is written as Vikas Dugar and father's name is written as PremChand Parasmal Golia. In VDIS certificate the name is written as MISS. SWETA PREMCHAND GOLIYA. Therefore, this lady is family member of the assessee and she has declared jewellery of 628 gram in VDIS. The ld AR submitted that her statements were not recorded by search party as she was out of Jaipur so question of recalling of fact regarding declaration of jewellery in VDIS in search statement does not arise. As regard the declaration of jewellery in Wealth Tax, the ld AR of assessee submitted that the Wealth Tax Act has been abolished w.e.f. AY 2016-17. Thus, in our considered view the documents submitted by the assessee in support of jewellery declared in VDIS are validly acceptable documents and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0. Thereafter, a further agreement was executed by Shri Umed Singh Dugar on 16-03-2011 on stamp paper dated 16-03-2011 which is also witnessed and notarised. In this agreement Shri Umed Singh Dugar expressed his inability to repay the loan and surrendered the mortgaged jewellery in favour of Shri Kesari Singh Dugar in consideration of liquidation of loan. Shri Umed Singh Dugar expired on 25-02-2019 much before the date of search, therefore otherwise also these agreements cannot be back dated or after thought and sanctity of these agreements cannot be doubted and the validity of theseagreements cannot be disregarded without any enquiry or material.Thus, in our considered view the documents submitted by the assessee in support of jewellery of 550.39 gram received by father of assessee Shri Kesari Singh Dugar from his brother late Shri Umed Singh Dugarare validly acceptable documents and therefore, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, jewellery to the extent of 550.32 gram claimed to have been received by Shri Kesari Singh Dugar from his brother Shri Umed Singh Dugarshould be treated as explained. (iv) In support of 415.860 gram jewellery claimed to be belonging....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oks of account and file copy of Balance sheet as contended by ld DR. Therefore, under the facts and circumstances of the case we hold that the ld AO has not justified in making the addition of Rs. 41,48,824/- and we set aside the findings of ld CIT(A) in this regard and direct the A.O. to delete the addition of Rs. 41,48,824/- made on account of alleged unexplained jewellery found at the time of search. 8. In grounds No. 3 of the appeal for AY 2020-21 (ITA No 974/JPR/2025) the assessee has challenged the addition of Rs. 4,84,050/- made u/s 69 of the Act on account of unexplained investment in construction of house. 8.1 The finding of Ld. AO, in the light of which the addition was made is at Page 11 of the assessment order, which is as under: - "8 Various incriminating documents, related to the construction of house, were seized from D-275, Todarmal Marg, Bani Park, Jaipur, i.e. residence of Sh. Vivek, Vinay & Vikas Dugar. On perusal of the Page 31 to 35 of Exhibit 3 it is seen that the assessee has made cash payment of Rs. 4,84,050 /- to contractor for carrying out Extra Work related to 'Boundary Wall' and 'KachaPakka'. Therefore, during the course of assessment proc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the ld. Assessing Officer on account of the above discussion of correction of figures by the site supervisor. 3) The same paper was considered in the AY 2018-19 for Rs. 5,10,132/- and that would have tantamounted to double addition and since it has been considered in the year under discussion to which it belongs, hence it has been rightly considered as pertaining to AY 2020-21. The resultant effect to not consider in AY 2018-19 is being dealt accordingly in the appeal for AY 2018-19 4) The rest of the submission and details for reduction of the extra amount work to Rs. 1,24,000/- do not hold merit because the extra work estimate has been found with the assessee and corrected to the real amount by the site supervisor and all the details mentioned therein and the bill raised by Shri Prabhu Dayal (Page 43, Exhibit-3) clearly mentioning extra work related to 'Boundary Wall and 'KatchaPakka' make it abundantly clear that the final amount paid out of books for extra work done was of Rs. 4,84,050/- and hence this ground of appeal does not hold merit on account of above factual matrix and consequent discussion and deserves rejection. Hence, this ground of appeal is rej....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... only and the payment of the same was made which is duly recorded in books of accounts and supported by the documents and the ld AO has not pointed out any defect in the documents submitted by the assessee. The assessee filed the payment vouchers and sworn affidavit of contractor Shri Prabhu Dayal, wherein he affirmed the facts of settling the bill of Rs. 4,84,050/- at Rs. 1,24,000/- only. The contents of the affidavits were neither controverted nor any inquiry was made thereon. Therefore, the sworn affidavit submitted should be accepted as admissible evidence and in this regard the reliance is placed on several decisions including decision of Jaipur ITAT in the case of Shri Nirmal Kumar Kedia ITA Nos. 124 to 126/JP/2019 And 286 to 288/JP/2019 order dated 06-06-2018. Therefore, once the submission of the assessee is supported by the admissible evidence, then there remains no reason to make the addition by disregarding to the same. Therefore, under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, we hold that the ld AO has not justified in making the addition of Rs. 4,84,050/- and we set aside the findings of ld CIT(A) in this regard and direct the A.O. to delete the addition of Rs. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to provide the details for the same but no explanation was provided by the assessee in this regard. For want of any proper explanation, the ld. Assessing Officer made an addition u/s 69C on this account. Now during the appellate proceedings, the assessee's A/R has submitted that the diary was containing rough and memorandum noting regarding the expenses of household nature and was being maintained by the wife of the assessee. He has further contended that the ld. Assessing officer did not take into consideration the fact that the amount noted in seized documents are in the nature of household expenses and the same are incurred by the assessee group out of withdrawls made for household expenses. It will be appropriate to refer to sub section (4A) of section 132, which states that where any books of account are found at the time of search are presumed to be true and that these belong to the person from whose residence the same are seized. Relevant portion of 132(4A) is reproduced as below:- "........Sec(4A) Where any books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing are or is found in the possession or control of any per....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by AR of the assessee regarding this ground of appeal is as under: - 1. The Income Tax department carried out search & seizure operation over the assessee and his family members on 28.06.2019. During the course of search a diary marked as Exhibit-6 was found & seized from the residence of the assessee group. Such diary was being maintained by the wife of the assessee in which she was making the memorandum noting, majorly regarding the household expenses. Since, the diary was pertaining to the wife of the assessee and the noted payments are pertaining to the entire family of the assessee, therefore the same without any reason cannot be added in the hands of the assessee. 2. So far as the noting of the pages, on the basis of addition has been made, we may submit as under: - Page No. Copy at PB Page Amount as per seized record Amount which reflects actual transaction (i.e. not rough noting or repetition) Explanation 1 35 30,000 5,500 (i) The page does not contain any date, however since the noting of the subsequent pages is pertaining to F. Y. 2010-11, therefore this noting cannot be pertaining to A.Y. 2020-21. (ii) The noting of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e subsequent pages is pertaining to F. Y. 2015-16 and 2016-17, therefore this noting cannot be pertaining to A.Y. 2020-21. (ii) Otherwise also, this noting is regarding the payment to domestic servant and payment of which always be part of household expenses, which of the year under consideration was Rs. 12.95 lacs, which is much more than to this payment. 35 72 5,000 5,000 The page does not contain any date, however on this page the month July and August has been written and since the year under consideration is a search year, which carried out in the month of June-2019, therefore the noting cannot be pertaining to the year under consideration. 41 78 61,200 17,200 The page does not contain any date, however on this page the month May to August has been written and since the year under consideration is a search year, which carried out in the month of June-2019, therefore the noting cannot be pertaining to the year under consideration. 51 88 10,000 10,000 The page itself does not contain any date, however since the noting of the previous and subsequent pages is pertaining to F. Y. 2011-12 to 2015-16, therefore this noting cannot be per....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s not justifiable more so when the department has carried out intensive search over the assessee and no source of undisclosed income was found as the result of intensive search and rummage of all corners of house and office. 5. The total drawings of the family of the assessee for Household etc., of the year under consideration, was of Rs. 12.95 lacs, which is much more then to the amount worked out by ld. AO on the basis of seized diary. Therefore, the presumption taken by ld. AO that these payments were made over & above to withdrawals made towards household expenses is not correct. In view of above submission, the humble assessee prays your honor kindly to delete the addition of Rs. 3,96,000/- made by ld. A.O. and confirmed by ld CIT(A) as the same is unwarranted and deserve to be deleted." 10.4 Per contra, the ld. DR submitted that there is no infirmity in the Assessment order passed by ld. AO. He relied upon the findings made by ld CIT(A). 11. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. We noted that the impugned addition was made on the basis of a diary which was being maintained by the wife of the assessee, in whic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,000/- made on account of alleged unexplained household expenses u/s 69C of the Act . 12. In the result, the appeal in ITA no. 974/JPR/2025 filed by the assessee is partly allowed. 13. Ground No 1 in AY 2014-15 (ITA No 972/JPR/2025) and AY 2015-16 (ITA NO 973/JPR/2025) is against addition of Rs. 2,10,600/- and Rs. 4,08,900/- respectively against household expenses u/s 69C. The Ground No 1 in AY 2014-15 and AY 2015-16 and Ground No 4 in AY 202021 are against addition against household expenses u/s 69C of the Act and is common in these appeals and are inter related and on identical facts except the difference in figure disputed in each year. Therefore, we are not repeating the facts, various grounds raised by the assessee and the arguments of both the parties in these appeals. We noted that the withdrawals against the household expenses by all the family members of the assessee were Rs. 13.25 Lacs in AY 2014-15 and Rs. 14.62 lacs in AY 2015-16 as against the household expenses of Rs. 2,10,600/- and Rs. 4,08,600/- respectively found noted in seized documents which is much more than what found recorded in the seized documents. Therefore, our findings in Ground No. 4 of ITA No.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gold set silver Jewellery IT Truly wealth fare return jewellery or winfrieddes feverray Fitur) wewere (mrm.) Page NO-22 100 ठपका कर लिया आवे ( wealthy Tax return - of set & IT ET na oh well, Tale return set , at gold & silver Jewellery us/ BAR RT 3to Purchase bill of A / Scurellery ( forthe day- stick a aufger & that a gift ? silver Jewellery 3 WET - MA Isst what acites & Document 4 बाद में, विà¤à¤¾à¤—ने सà¤à¥€ रसà¥à¤¡à¥à¤² कर इंगा। पà¥à¤°à¤¶à¥à¤¨1.२३, दिनांक' २8-06-19 को अपकà¥à¤· आवास D- 295, टोडरमल मारà¥à¤—, पैरान à¤à¤¾à¤ªà¤•à¥‡ शयनककà¥à¤· में अलमारी से Gold & Lilse Trualuy Tif of IT Jewellery FOT valuation ATI's registered apprend Valush à....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ie at the af rame 8 91286 gm Irellery fast Syndicat Bank & # Trolley os - Release a few v & Gt ; - >D Jamaltary Itam No 5,16= 17 ar Seim 7 Document 9 valuation wird of approved values IR valuation PAS ST of 30 yet PRE ah & 1 gift Not gold Jewellery 1092.700 gm. w-1 Jindy 23/2/19. (vish king's) 23/7/19 w-2 -- -------- 27 4 ------- ------- upor 0 22 ------ --------- --------- 2 --- - - Document 10 12 6 si Paran'a you y' 1 stfre CBDT Instructions Il inger, Je, DEBer & P stam No: 12. 10 som gold sendlony for Item No 1.2 10 319% sita NA Porta spas à ular ? The JE 2. FORTEI CBDT Instruction 2, 353212 with Jewellery itens "1 2 17 & air i wurst with youfre, 30 2 for Items No , i to ir of gold Jewellery THE UReaR 2 21 Document 11 (3) 2 sata fim wn the sit al sh waters on ongision valuer Bis Heutea Pasar sar, se astep i Am yours no. 1 2 10 with gold Jewellery sich The wind UP-2 30 Document 12 156) TRACK: shiner ----- of st of fornifor miti 6), -PINE-1010859 GrapeTalim nosfor $11.95 313 actualy arat ars Ant Tack: 527: 10, sit Gold I hans S. No. 1 st so it will Net Weight 46....