ANJU BALA SACHDEVA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 18, NEW DELHI

Date of hearing 20.08.2025 Date of pronouncement 20.08.2025 ORDER

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM

1. 1. That the order is against the fact and law of the case.

2. That the appellant has not provided proper opportunity of being heard which is bad in law as against the principal of natural law of justice.

3. That A/A erred in making the addition on account of jewelry whereas the same has already been offered for tax in the petition filed before the Hon'ble Settlement Commission and the same has accepted by Hon'ble I.B. for Settlement as per the calculation made by the search party and the CIT appeal is further erred in accepting the Calculation of the A/A and ignoring the calculation of the Search Party as well as not considering the intension of the appellant 4. That the A/A framed the assessment arbitrary, illegal which is bad in law and the appellant authority further erred in accepting the same.

5. That the A/A frame the assessment as the judge of his own contention which is against the law of jurisprudence.

3. Both the learned representatives next invite our attention to the CIT(A)’s lower appellate discussion granting part relief to the assessee as under: “4. I have considered the facts of the case and written submissions of the appellant. The Grounds of Appeal Nos. 1 to 3 pertain to single issue of addition of Rs.53,15,286/- for AY 2018-19 as unexplained investment u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the IT Act, 1961. Hence, all these grounds are cumulatively discussed as under: 4.1 The details of jewellery found during search operation conducted on various members of the Laxmi Remote Group are as under:

2 | P a g e 4.2 It is observed that unexplained investment in jewellery u/s 69A by various members of the Laxmi Remote Group as determined by the Ld. AO is as under:

4.3 Below is the chart showing the entitlement of the family members of the appellant as per CBDT Instructions No. 1916 dated 11.05.1994:

4.4 The position of total jewellery is summarized as under:

4.5 From the above it is observed that the total Jewellery found during the search is 5624.06 while the explained jewellery is 1750 grams. Hence in these facts and circumstances of the case, the source of gold jewellery weighing 3874.06 grams found during the search operation is considered as unexplained. 4.6 Therefore, the value of the unexplained jewellery weighing 3874.06 grams along with the value of diamonds and stones which are embedded, is calculated as under:

3 | P a g e 4.7 From the above the value of unexplained jewellery is calculated at Rs.1,55,62,100/-. To this the total value of silver items amounting to Rs.80,000/- is added. Thus, the final addition comes to Rs. 1,56,42,100/-. 4.8 It is further observed that Laxmi Remote Group has approached the Settlement Commission. The relevant part of the order of Hon'ble Interim Board for Settlement-VII, Chennai dated 24.04.2023 is as under:

4 | P a g e 5 | P a g e 6 | P a g e 7 | P a g e 8 | P a g e 9 | P a g e 10 | P a g e 11 | P a g e

12 | P a g e 4.9 On the basis of the above order, the surrender on account of unexplained investment in jewellery by various persons of Laxmi Remote Group during AY 2018-19 is tabulated as under:

LAXMI REMOTE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED CASH FLOW STATEMENT (Rs. in crores)

Particular/a.y 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 TOTAL OPENING BALANC 3.27 0.79 SOURCES SALES AS PER IVMS 91.07 119.78 97.71 99.03 40.98 MENTIONED IN THE NOTICE U/S 142(1) DATED 29.10.19 SALES AS PER ERP 78.62 86.13 86.02 71.71 27.77 UNDISCLOSED SALES 12.45 33.66 11.69 27.31 13.21 (DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SALES AS PER IVMS MENTIONED IN THE NOTICE U/S 142(1) DATED 29.10.19 AND REGULAR BOOKS IN RESPECT OF SALES DEPOSITE Less- UNRECORDED 17.54 16.71 18.36 24.1 12.61 EXPENSES (AS PER IVMS) NET PROFIT ON SALES -5.09 16.95 -6.67 3.21 0.60 9.0 SCRAP SALES 0.02 0.02 EXCESS OF UTILIZATION 0.29 1.75 10.58 8.75 21.38 OVER SOURCES TOTAL 0.29 1.75 5.50 16.95 2.10 3.21 0.60 30.4 UTILIZATION LOANS (CASH PAID AGAINST 0.29 1.75 5.50 13.68 5.37 26.59 LOAN TAKEN BY THE COMPANY, ITS DIRECTORS AND THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS) COMMISSION PAID AGAINST 0.89 0.89 LOAN ENTRIES PURCHASE OF MACHINERY 0.04 0.04 CASH SEIZED 0.67 0.67 JEWELLERY SEIZED 1.49 1.49 TOTAL 0.29 1.75 5.50 13.68 5.37 2.42 0.67 29.68 CLOSING BALANCE 3.27 0.79 0.72 4.10 From the above table and para 2.6.1 of the order of the Hon'ble Interim Board for Settlement-VII, Chennai, it is observed that the addition of Rs.1,49,18,821/- on account of unexplained investment in jewellery u/s 69A has been considered by the Hon'ble Interim Board for Settlement- VII, Chennai in its order dated 24.04.2023 and accepted the same as offered by the Laxmi Remote Group without making any adjustment in this regard.

4.11 In view of the above findings and respectfully following the order of Hon'ble Interim Board for Settlement-VII, Chennai, the addition on account of unexplained investment u/s 69A of the IT Act in the hands of Ms. Anju Sachdeva, Ms. Deepa Sachdeva, Mr. Prakash Sachdeva and Mr. Vijay Sachdeva is restricted to Rs,7,23,279/-(1,56,42,100-1,49,18,821).

4.12 The appellant in his submission has further submitted that 13 | P a g e "It is worth mentioning here that the lockers are being kept separately in their respective names but the entire wealth was created out of the business income of the company therefore all the four family members are equally liable and entitled of the our come of jewelry seized during the search operation and assess thereafter." 4.13 The contention of the appellant is considered and found having some merit particularly in view of the order of the Hon'ble Interim Board for Settlement-VII, Chennai wherein surrender on account of jewellery has been accepted in totality and not in the hands of individual member of the group. 4.14 Therefore, addition of Rs.7,23,279/ is divided equally among the four members (Ms. Anju Sachdeva, Ms. Deepa Sachdeva, Mr. Prakash Sachdeva and Mr. Vijay Sachdeva) of the group i.e. Rs.1,80,820/- in the hands of each member. 4.15 In view of the above discussion, the addition made by the Id. AO under section 69A of the Act, on account of unexplained jewellery, is hereby restricted to Rs 1,80,820/- and these grounds of appeal are hereby partly allowed.”

4. It is in this factual background that the assessee herein is aggrieved against both the lower authorities’ respective findings leading to the impugned addition of Rs.1,80,820/- representing Section 69A unexplained jewellery forming the sole subject matter of adjudication before us.

5. Learned counsel vehemently reiterates the assessee’s pleadings that the impugned sum has already been offered to tax in “settlement” going by his corresponding petition filed in question. Mr. Singh on the other hand takes us to para 4.11 of the CIT(A)’s order extracted herein above that the entire issue has already been discussed whilst partly upholding the impugned 14 | P a g e addition Rs. 7,23,279/-; assessing it to the extent of 1/4th share in the hands of the assessee.

6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee and Revenue’s foregoing vehement submissions. We find no merit in the assessee’s arguments once the CIT(A) has already considered the entire factual position finalized in the Interim Board for Settlement-VII, Chennai, remaining unrebutted from the assessee’s side. We, thus reject her instant sole substantive ground in very terms.