CHANDRA PRAKASH JAIN,UTTARPRADESH vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -20, DELHI

ORDER

Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:

Chandra Prakash Jain unexplained money representing jewellery of Rs.37,47,492/-; reading as under: “4. On perusal of the appellate record and submission filed it is noted that the addition to the total income of the assessee is on account of single issue of jewellery found during the course of search proceedings and it is also pertinent to mention that the appellant has also submitted its submission only with regard to addition to its income on account of unexplained money being seized jewellery. Hence, all the grounds of appeal are hereby adjudicated altogether. 4.1 The assessee is an individual person, he filed his return of income for A.Y. 2022- 23 on 30.07.2022 declaring income of Rs. 43,37,120/-. 4.2 A search and seizure operation u/s 132/133A of the IT Act, 1961 was conducted on the assessee's premises on 30.09.2021. During the search operation at residence premise property bearing No "307-308 Tower-4, Augusta Town Homes, Jaypee Wish Town, Sector - 128, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida, UP-201301" 6 locker keys belonging to the assessee and his family were found. Jewellery of 1712.624 gms (Rs. 80,87,936/-) were found in Two Lockers and Jewellery of 793 gms (Rs. 37,47,492/-) were seized. 4.3 So, the Ld. AO issued notice to the assessee to provide the documentary evidence in support of such jewellery and explain the source of such investment. In response of the same the assessee filed his reply on dated 21.02.2024, which was considered but not found tenable by Ld. AO in view of statement given by Smt. Urmila Jain and Ms. Abha Agarwal during the search proceedings. 4.4 As the assessee failed to provide any documentary evidences in support of his claim before the Ld, AO. So, the Ld. AO made the addition of Rs. 37,47,492 u/s 69A of the IT Act, 1961 and added to the total income of the assessee. 4.5 Further during the appellate proceedings appellant has submitted The assessing officer in an arbitrary manner made the addition of jewellery found in the locker, on the premise that the valuation report was 30 years old. Although the same makes the case of the appellant strong that the jewellery it was a fact on record that Chandra Prakash Jain jewellery in the locker pertained to very old period. The assessing officer's has not given any specific reason for making the addition. During the course of assessment proceedings the assessing officer after considering the valuation report submitted by the appellant dated 31-03-1995. had specifically stated the same cannot be trusted as the same didn't match with the valuation reports made during the course of search. Even the remarks of the assessing officer that the jewellery didn't have bills, I would like to submit that as jewellery belonged to an even older period and as bills were not available with the appellant, the appellant choose the refer the jewellery for valuation on 31/03/1995. So, this cannot be the basis for drawing adverse inference upon the appellant. 4.6 Considering the reply filed by the appellant and AO it is evident that jewellry found during the course of search proceedings does not have any bills. Further the veracity of the valuation report is also questionable as it is 30 years old, there is no stamp neither it is signed by any witness not even by the party itself. Merely a statement by the appellant that the jewellery found during the search is old, so he does not have bills is not acceptable. Further it is also pertinent to mention that the statement of Smt Urmila Jain, Smt Abha Agarwal and Shri Chandra Prakash Jain are not in tune with each other because Smt Urmila Jain& Smt Abha Agarwal has accepted that some of the jewellery was received during their respective marriages and some was purchased later which includes jewellery of male member also even appellant has failed justify the claims of the Smt Urmila Jain & Smt Abha Agarwal and failed to establish that the which jewellery was received at the time of marriage and which was purchased later. 4.7 In view of the above the appellant has failed to explain and justify the jewellery seized during the search proceedings. Appellant failed to produce any documentary evidence to substantiate its claims. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that AO has rightly made the addition amounting to Rs.37,47,492/- u/s 69A of the Act, being unexplained money in the form of jewellery.