SMT. SHWETA JHIRIWAL,ALWAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR, ALWAR

It was common ground that the issues involved in both the appeals were similar arising in the backdrop of identical set of facts, therefore both the appeals were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by vide this common consolidated order.

For the sake of convenience the facts relating to the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.1310/JPR/2025 pertaining to assessment year 2019-20 are being considered for adjudication and the judgment rendered in the facts of the said case will apply mutatis mutandis to the other appeal of the assessee also.

Briefly stated, search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was carried in the case of Mama Group on 20.07.2022, the assessee being one of the key members of the Group. During the course of the search action at the residential premises of Sh. Rajan Jhiriwal, the husband of the assessee, the mobile phone of Rajan Jhiriwal was cloned in one hard drive and was annexurized as Annexure AS, Exhibit-3. On perusal of the working copy of the Exhibit 3 of Annexure AS, the images related to purchase of jewellery were found. On perusal of the entries recorded therein it was revealed that during the year under consideration the assessee had purchased Gold and Diamond jewellery

We have heard both the parties and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The basis with the Revenue for treating the assessee to have made purchase of jewellery is the image of three documents relating to jewellery found in the mobile phone of the assesses husband. The assessee, we have noted, has repeatedly stated the said documents to be mere rough documents/rough estimates for quotation / price discussion for purchase. She repeatedly pointed out that the documents lacked any indication of how or whether any payment was actually made for the said purchases. She pointed out that there was no mention of cash, cheque, bank transfer or any other mode of payment on the said documents. She also pointed out that the image did not contain any supporting details typically associated with a completed transaction, such as invoice number, name of jeweler, payment confirmation, date of transaction or any signature or acknowledgment. She pointed out that the document could in no way be construed as a formal sale invoice since it contained no details of the invoice, being the jewelers name, address, GSTIN, invoice number etc.

The above facts have remained uncontroverted before us. In light of the same, it is evident that, the document found during search could not alone have led to the finding of the assessee having purchased jewellery to the extent mentioned in the said documents. The document containing no detail of a completed transaction or for that matter even an invoice, as noted in the orders below and not controverted by the Revenue, we agree with the assessee that it alone could not have established the fact of the assessee having purchased jewellery. Considering further the fact that the said jewellery was not found during search conducted on the assessee, it lends credence and strength to the assesses contention that the document found was a mere estimate and no actual purchase was done by the assessee. The Revenues case resting entirely on the documents so found, we have no hesitation in holding that the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is merely based on surmises and conjectures. We therefore, find no reason to confirm the orders of the Authorities below holding the assessee to have purchased jewellery through unaccounted sources

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

In effect, both the appeals of the assesses before us are allowed.