TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 2315
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....einafter referred to as "the AO"] in taxing jewellery and watches worth Rs. 52,54,820/- under section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The reasons given are wrong, contrary to facts of the case and against the provision of law; 1.2. The CIT(A)/AO failed to appreciate that holding jewellery / watches worth Rs. 52,54,820/- is commensurate with the assessee's net worth and social standing; 1.3. The CIT(A) / AO erred in estimating the valuation of watches found in possession of the assessee at Rs. 48,40,000/- on an adhoc basis without appreciating that some of the watches were not even real; 2. Addition under section 69A of the Act on account of foreign currency of Rs. 10,00,000/- 2.1. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO in taxing foreign currency worth Rs. 10,00,000/-, found in possession of the assessee, under section 69A of the Act. The reasons given are wrong, contrary to facts of the case and against the provision of law, 2.2. The CIT(A) / AO failed to appreciate that holding foreign currency worth Rs. 10,00,000/- is commensurate with the assessee's net worth, social standin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,696/- made by ld. Assessing Officer, assessee could explain the nature and source of substantial portion of the addition which resulted into relief from ld. CIT(A) and against which Department is not in appeal before the Tribunal. The details of the additions made on this account is tabulated as under: Sr. No. Name of the party Amount (in Rs.) 1. Anita Garware 1,23,85,080 2. Chandrakant Garware Family Trust 1,25,21,199 3. Nihal Garware 12,95,940 4. Nikita Garware 32,34,357 5. Nikita Garware (through her mother will) 1,08,41,297 6. Nishka Garware 1,89,100 7. Miscellaneous 2,25,720 Total 4,06,92,696 4.1. From the table, it can be seen that the addition sustained is in respect of Sr.No.6 and 7, i.e. Rs.1,89,100/- for Ms. Nishka Garware and Rs.2,25,720/- towards miscellaneous. In order to explain the nature and source of jewellery for the above two additions, assessee made submissions as under: "The AO has made addition of Rs 1,89,100/- in respect of jewellery pertaining to Nishka Garware. Nishka Garware is the daughter of the appellant. This jewellery is one ring worth Rs 1.43 lakhs an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... CBDT instruction was treated as explained. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record, as well as submissions made before us. The details of aforesaid jewellery for which additions have been made is extracted below: Nishka Garware Reference of Seized/ P.O. of Jewelley and Watches Sr. No. of Seized/P.O Packed No. Items Gross WE (In Grams) Net Wt (In Grams) Diamond Weight Diamond Rate Gruss Value Total Value JEW SEIZED AT HOME 6 18 One Coin 10 10 45.730 45.730 JEW SEIZED AT HOME 94 153 1 Ring 10 9 3 112.500 30,870 143,370 Total 20 19 5 112.500 76.600 189.100 Miscellaneous Jewellery Packed No. Items Gross Wt (In Grams) Net Wt (In Grams) Diamond Weight Diamond Rate Gold Rate Gross Value Total Value 101 Two Ea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing to the assessee, value adopted for the purpose of addition is incorrect, since the watches are not real. Assessee thus, contends that the addition is based on incorrect valuation and therefore ought to be deleted. Furthermore, according to him, considering the status of high net worth of the assessee, it is not uncommon to hold watches of such value. Ld. CIT(A) has sustained addition for this amount by observing that valuation of watches is supported by valuation report of a registered valuer. Assessee could not furnish contrary evidence in the form of invoice and valuation report to substantiate its claim and thus the addition was sustained. 6.3. Before us, assessee contends that in the course of search, the above Jewellery and watches were seized and continue to remain with the department till date. Detailed submissions were made before the Investigating Officer, ld. Assessing Officer and ld. CIT(A) that the watches were not real. As the watches were seized by the ld. Assessing Officer, assessee had no occasion to submit his own valuation report to counter the valuation adopted by the Department. Infact, till date, the watches are in custody of the Department. A copy of a ....