TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 453
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... investments in the wrist watches. 2.1 That the learned lower authorities went in appreciating the submissions of the appellant that search operation was carried out at the residential property of the appellant at 5 KG Marg, New Delhi Oil 22.10.2016 wherein the impugned watches were found. The impugned wrist watches belongs to the all members of the Kochar Family residing together at the same address which were given to them by their parents and parents in law at the time of their marriage and other ceremonial occasion. 2.2 That the ld. CIT(A) and ld. Assessing officer did not appreciate that the watches as found at the time of search belong to the assessee and his 20 joint family members which comprises of four brothers and their wives along with their mother as per details given below. The impugned watches have been received on various occasions including birthday, marriage anniversary, newborn babies etc. and in absence of any evidence to suggest that any expenses haw been incurred on purchase of watches. any adverse inference drawn regarding unexplained investment and that too in the hands of the appellant and also for the instant assessment year is n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in the name of Harshit Kochar, Smt. Gurpreet Kaur Kochar and Smt. Jasmine Kaur Kochar at Delhi Safe Company Limited, 86 Janpath, New Delhi on 05.12.2016 and found jewellery valued at Rs.59,86,168/- from the locker. To the extent of jewellery of 573 grams valued at Rs.19,17.726/- for which assessee has submitted copies of bills, accordingly the same was adjusted and the difference amount was added to the income of the assessee as undisclosed income and made addition to the extent of Rs. 40,68,442/- u/s 69A of the Act. 5. Further during the course of search at the residential premises of the assessee, watches valued at Rs. 92,37,000/- were found and inventorised. The assessee was asked to furnish all the supporting evidences to prove the source of investment made in the purchases of abovesaid watches found from the residence. In response, vide letter dated 13.12.2018, the assessee has submitted as under :- "2(ii) The assessee has been required to explain the detail of watches found and seized of the value of Rs.92,37,000/- from 5, K.G. Marg, New Delhi. In this connection, it is submitted that in the course of search on 22.10.2016 certain personal wrist watches of the Ko....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....p; 6. Further considering the above submissions of the assessee, the AO found that assessee has not furnished any evidences with regard to receipt of costly watches on the marriage and other ceremonies of different assessees of his family. Therefore, assessee has not been able to explain the source of investment for purchase of abovesaid watches. Accordingly, he proceeded to make addition u/s 69A of the Act on the undisclosed income of the assessee and also invoked the provisions of section 115BBE to the extent of Rs.92,37,000/ -. 7. Also other additions of unexplained cash deposits made by the assessee during demonetization period and other unaccounted cash were also found and additions were made. 8. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (A)-27, New Delhi. 9. After considering the detailed submissions of the assessee, ld. CIT (A) deleted the additions made by the AO relating to unexplained jewellery. However, with regard to watches, assessee has submitted value of each watch based on the price available on internet which is reproduced by the ld. CIT (A) at page 42 of the impugend order. For the sake of clari....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n appeal to the aforesaid findings, it reaches finality. 13. With regard to watches, he submitted that these watches were found at the residence of the assessee in which other family members were also living together, these watches belong to the family members of the assessee and the addition was proposed only in the hands of the assessee. Further the valuation was carried out by the AO from the unapproved source and he submitted that the ld. CIT (A) has revalued the value of the watches and determined at Rs.21,26,142/ -. But he submitted that after determining the value of the watches, ld. CIT (A) overlooked the fact that these watches were belonged to the whole family. However, he considered the ownership of the watches only upon the assessee and proceeded to make the addition u/s 69A of the Act. He submitted that ld. CIT (A) overlooked the fact that these watches were found not in the possession of the assessee rather at the residence, therefore, presumption as to the assets as per section 292C cannot be applied on the assessee alone. These watches are expected to be of the family members. Therefore, invocation of provisions of section 69A is not proper and he prayed that con....