NINKUJ PANSARI,HOWRAH vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

None represented on behalf of the assessee. Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT-DR represented on behalf of the revenue.

It was the submission of the ld. CIT-DR that in the course of search silver utensils value of Rs.6,64,200/- had been found and the same has been treated as the undisclosed investment of the assessee u/s.69A of the Act. It was the submission that before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee had claimed that in view of the Instruction issued by the CBDT No.1916, dated 11.05.2019, jewellery found in the course of search to certain limited extent which are not to be seized, was relied upon. It was the Instruction related to the jewellery, more specifically, gold jewellery, the same could not be made available to silver utensils. It was the submission that the order of the ld. CIT(A) is liable to be upheld.

We have considered the submissions of the ld. CIT-DR. A perusal of the computation of the total income of the assessee shows that the assessee is having a salary income of Rs.79,72,547/- and income from other sources of Rs.7,20,256/-. This is what has been disclosed in the assessment year 2019-2020. Further, a perusal of the assessment order shows that the assessee is deriving income as a Director in the company, namely, Balasore Alloys Limited. The fact that the assessee is having so much of income itself would show that the assessee did have the source for making investments of Rs.6,64,200/-. Just because certain silver utensils were found during the course of search would not make said silver utensils as undisclosed investment especially when the assessee himself is having such large income and is also paying taxes far an excess of Rs.25 lakhs per annum. This being so, considering the principle of preponderance of probabilities, the addition of Rs.6,64,200/- made by the AO and as confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) stands deleted.