SMT. GANGABEN JIVRAJ DESAI,MEHSANA vs. THE DCIT, CEN. CIRCLE-2(1),, AHMEDABAD

The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the Assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Ahmedabad (‘CIT(A)’ in short), dated 24.08.2017 arising in the assessment order dated 30.03.2015 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AY 2013-14.

In the captioned appeal, the assessee has raised several ground but has essentially challenged the addition of Rs.5,70,000/- sustained by the CIT(A) towards silver bars of 9.995 kg as unexplained investment.

Briefly stated, the assessee is an individual and a partner in the firm named Master Developers. A search and seizure operation was carried out on 03.01.2013 at the business and residential premises of the group including assessee wherein gold jewellery, cash and loose papers filed were found and seized. Consequently, a notice under s.153A of the Act was issued and in response thereof the assessee filed return of income for AY 2013-14 at Rs.25,68,770/-. The return of income filed by the assessee for AY 2013-14 in question was subjected to scrutiny and the assessment was completed under s.143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act at Rs.32,03,482/- as against the total income returned at Rs.25,68,770/-. As noted by the AO in assessment order, in the course of search, gold jewellery worth Rs.6,80,760/- and silver bars and coins weighing 19.995kg worth Rs.11,39,715/- were inter alia found. The AO did not find the source of investment towards silver bars of 19.995 kg worth Rs.11,38,715/- to be satisfactory. However, considering the size of family and other attendant circumstances, credit of 10kg of silver was given and remaining 9.995 kg was treated as unexplained investment. Consequently, addition of Rs.5,70,000/- was added to the total income of the assessee under s.69B of the Act as unexplained investment.

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). Having taking note of the detailed written submissions made by the assessee in her defense, the CIT(A) did not find any merit in the plea raised and confirmed the addition of Rs.5,70,000/- on account of silver bars found at the residence of the assessee. The relevant operative para of the order of the CIT(A) is reproduced hereunder:

The learned AR for the assessee relied upon the submissions made before the CIT(A) and submitted that entire addition is in the realm of estimations after granting ad hoc exclusion of 10kg of silver bars as explained. It was contended that having regard to the size of the family and withdrawals made by the family members to the tune of Rs.10,08,000/- in aggregate by the family, the source of investment in silver bars ought to have been treated as explained.

The learned DR, on the other hand, relied upon the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that the onus was on the assessee to explain the source of silver bars of huge quantity found at the residence of the assessee. The explanation offered on behalf of the assessee continues to be generic without any factual details on the source of purchase, such as, bills, date of purchase and availability of funds at the relevant time. The learned DR accordingly pleaded that in the absence of any satisfactory explanation offered in this regard, the Revenue authorities were completely justified in making additions under challenge. It was further pointed out that the action of AO was quite benign while approaching the issue. The AO has suo motu granted the relief towards 10kg of silver bars despite absence of any factual particulars thereon. The learned DR thus submitted that no interference with the order of the CIT(A) is warranted for the impugned additions.

We have carefully considered the rival submissions. As noted in the earlier paras, the addition of Rs.5,70,000/- on account of 9.9995 silver bars is in question. We find that no cogent explanation could be furnished by the assessee at any stage towards source of acquisition of silver bars of 19.995 kg. found in possession of assessee. The AO is seen to have weighed the totality of circumstances liberally and has presumed 10 kg silver bars as explained having regard to the status of family and its size etc. We observe that the onus which lay upon the assessee to explain the source of silver bars found in her possession was not discharged at all. The plea made is quite generic and abstract without any corroboration with factual details. We thus see no perceptible reason to interfere with the order of the AO as sustained by the CIT(A) on this score.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.