AKSHA MOHAMMEDANAS SHAIKH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed return of income for A.Y. 2022-23 on 24.07.2022 declaring total income of Rs.4,90,800/-. The assessee had disclosed income as general commission agent, commodity brokers and auctioneer and income from other source. A search action u/s. 132 of the Act, was carried out in the case of MHS Group on 16.11.2021. In the course of search certain gold jewellery, silver and diamond jewellery as well as cash was found from the residence and locker of the assessee. The AO after examining the explanation of the assessee had treated the gold jewellery of Rs. 86,78,591/- as unexplained. Similarly, silver and diamond jewellery of Rs. 2,09,900/- was also held as unexplained. Cash of Rs. 1,03,45,000/- found from the locker of the assessee was also treated as unexplained money of the assessee. The assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act, on 16.01.2024 at total income of Rs. 1,04,13,790/-.

Aggrieved with the order of the AO, the assessee had filed an appeal before the first appellate authority, which was decided by the learned CIT(A) vide the impugned order and the appeal of the assesse was partly allowed.

Now both the Revenue and the assessee are in appeal before us. We will first take up the appeal of the Revenue.

The Revenue has taken the following grounds in this appeal: 5

Per Contra, Shri Anil Kshatriya, the Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the unexplained jewellery as worked out by the AO was already covered by the amounts surrendered by different family members in the course of search. He submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) had considered the explanation of the assessee in respect of overall perspective of the group and given a categorical finding that the unexplained jewellery as worked-out in the hands of the assessee was duly covered by the additional income as offered by the different family members.

We have considered rival submissions and carefully gone through the materials available on record. It is found from Md. Anas F. Shaikh, had owned up the purchase of unaccounted jewellery of the entire family and had declared additional income on this account. The purchase of unexplained jewellery was rightly held by the Ld. CIT(A), as application of unexplained income owned up by Md. Anas F Shaikh. The Ld. CIT(A) has reproduced income disclosed by different family members/business entities as well as application of the disclosed income in his order. The

The Ld. CIT(A) had also observed that no addition was made in the hands of Mustufamiyan H Shaikh and the AO had accepted his declaration. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the facts of the case has given the following findings in respect of the addition of jewellery in the hands of thje assessee:

It is thus found that the Ld. CIT(A) had rightly considered the disclosure made by the different family members towards application of income for purchase of gold jewellery, silver etc. and given a categorical finding that the total disclosure made by the Group was sufficient to cover the addition on account of gold and silver articles in the hands of lady Members. The Ld. CIT(A) had also rightly held that considering the disclosure made by the different family members, the addition for unexplained jewellery in the hands of the assessee tantamount to double addition.

The Revenue has been unable to controvert the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). The fact that the addition for unexplained jewellery in the hands of the assessee was duly covered by the disclosure of the family members including the husband of the assessee, has not been disputed. The Ld. CIT(A) has considered the facts of the case in right perspective and deleted the addition on account of unexplained jewellery. We do not find any reason to differ with the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is upheld and the grounds taken by the Revenue are dismissed.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

The only ground taken by assessee in this appeal is as under:

Shri Anil Kshatriya, the Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the AO had treated the cash of Rs. 10,34,500/- found from the locker of the assessee as unexplained. He explained that the husband of the assessee Md. Anas F. Shaikh was joint holder of the locker and the cash found from the locker was covered by the disclosure made by the assessee’s husband. Therefore, the AO was not correct in making the addition of Rs. 10,34,500/- in the hands of the assessee.

Shri Alpesh Parmar, the Ld. CIT-DR, supported the order of the lower authorities.

We have considered the rival submissions. There is no dispute to the fact that the cash of Rs. 10,34,500/- was found from the bank locker, which was jointly held by the assessee and her husband Md. Anas F Shaikh. According to the AO, no documentary evidence was brought on record that the husband of the assessee had made any disclosure in respect of the cash found from the locker. The Ld. CIT(A) has considered the explanation of the assessee that the cash found from the locker was owned up by her husband, but had rejected the explanation for the reason

It is evident from the above chart that after accounting for the application of additional income towards purchase of gold jewellery, silver etc. and mobile purchase, totalling to Rs. 1,13,18,925/-, balance of Rs. 6,18,179/- only was remaining. The cash of Rs. 10,34,500/- found from the locker is not found as application of income in the above chart. Further, the balance amount remaining was Rs. 6,18,179/- only and thus the cash of Rs.10,34,500/- found from the locker could not have been fully explained. Since the balance carried forward in the hand of Md. Anas F Shaikh was Rs. 6,18,179/-, the assessee can be allowed set-off to that extent in respect of the cash found from the locker. Accordingly, the

The appeal of the assessee of the assessee is partly allowed.

In the final result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed while the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.