2026 (3) TMI 457

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dated 30.09.2024 passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and relates to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19. 2. At the outset itself, it was submitted that the assessees are spouses i.e. husband and wife and the addition made in their case arose on account of common search action conducted u/s.132 of the Act on the assessees. The addition, it was pointed out, pertained to jewellery found during search, the source of which remained unexplained. The entire jewellery found, it was contended was taxed 50-50% on substantive basis in the hands of both the assessees and 50-50% on protective basis. Thus, the entire jewellery found unexplained was taxed in the hands of both the assessees, 50% on subs....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s. On 08.03.2018 bank locker no.139 maintained with State bank of India, Harni Road, Vadodara in the name of Shri Hitendra C. Patel, was operated and jewellery worth Rs. 27,78,955/- (942.4 grams) was found. Similarly, locker no. 03 maintained with State Bank of India, Harni Road, Vadodara Branch in the name of Smt. Sushilaben C Patel, Smt. Mitaben H Patel and Smt. Nainesha C Patel were operated; in which jewellery worth Rs. 25,12,220/- (851.6 grams) was found. The total jewellery found at assessee's residence and during operation of two bank security lockers, thus, was 2,668.0 grams. The AO considered 1200 grams of jewellery as explained in view of CBDT Instruction No. 1916 dated 11.05.1994 allowing benefit of jewellery to a certain extent ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ership firm of the assessees for buying jewellery, as duly explained and deleted the addition made by the AO to this extent. The balance addition of Rs. 17,87,257/- was confirmed, 50% on substantive basis and 50% on protective basis amounting to Rs. 6,31,857/-, each in the hands of both the assessees. 6. The argument of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee before us was that the authorities below had given no credence to the fact that when search was conducted on the assessee on 31-01-2018, there were a number of relatives present in the residential premises of the assessee for two reasons: i. The father of the assessee had expired on 19-01-2018, just about 10 days before search took place on 31-01-2018, and the relatives were prese....