Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI
Before: SH. SHAMIM YAHYA & SH. ANUBHAV SHARMA
The appeal is preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 29.11.2018 of CIT(A)-IV, Kanpur (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. ‘FAA’) in appeal no. CIT(A)-IV/KNP/10547/DCIT- CC/DDN/2017-18/671 arising out of an appeal before it against the assessment order dated 31.12.2017 passed u/s 153A(1)(b)/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) by the DCIT, CC, Dehradun (hereinafter referred as the Ld. AO).
Heard and perused the record.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is individual who derived income from house property, business and profession, capital gains and other sources. A search and seizure operation was conducted in the case of assessee on 22.07.2015. Admittedly no incriminating information/ documents belonging to the assessee was found during the course of search. However, on the search of residence and bank locker gold jewellery was found which was not seized during the search and proceedings. Ld. AO earmarked 339.4 grams consisting of Rs. 9,06,480/- to be belonging to the assessee and sought explanation from the assessee. Statement of Mrs. Renu Ahuja, daughter in law of Assessee was recorded wherein she stated that 233.400 grams of gold bars belong to her. However, AO completed the assessment making addition of Rs. 6,39,497/- on account of unexplained jewellery of 239.4 gms by giving relief of 100 gms., on account of jewellery of male members allowed to be not seized as per CBDT Instruction no. 1916 dated 11.05.1994.
Ld. CIT(A) sustained the addition and assessee is in appeal raising following grounds :- “
1. The learned assessing officer as also learned CIT(Appeals) have erred in making and confirming addition of Rs. 6,39,397/- on account of alleged unexplained jewellery found at the time of search.
2. The order passed is arbitrary, against facts and provisions of law.
3. The appellant craves leave to reserves the opportunity to add to, delete from, alter or modify grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.”
Heard and perused the record. Ld. Authorised Representatives merely relied the respective cases before Ld. Tax authorities.
Appreciating the record and submissions, it comes up from the statement of Renu Ahuja placed at page no. 10 to 13 of the paper book that in the statement recorded at time of search on 24.08.2015 itself, that she had stated that the jewellery recovered from the locker was handed by her husband to her for the marriage of her daughters and her husband had died. Admittedly some part of the jewellery has not been added in the hands of the present assessee who is father in law and for 339.4 gms, Ld. AO has not accepted this explanation of the assessee on the basis of some discrepancies in the valuation reports prepared at the time of search. Ld. AO had observed that at the time of search and seizure proceedings itself Mrs. Renu Ahuja has not identified and claimed that these gold bars belong to her and she had only mentioned about the jewellery.
The Bench is of considered view that the jewellery, like gold set is very much identifiable to the female who would wear it and so there was reason to identify the same at time of search but gold bar were claimed to be held by Mrs. Renu Ahuja for the marriage of her daughters, so she claimed them when first opportunity arose. Therefore, her admission cannot not be discarded and addition in the hands of assessee is not justified. The orders of ld. Tax Authorities are accordingly not sustainable. The ground no. 1 as raised stand allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The appeal of assessee is allowed.