Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES “G”, DELHI
Before: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Joginder Singh,
09/11/2017 सुनवाई क+ तार�ख / Date of Hearing : 09/11/2017 आदेश क+ तार�ख /Date of Order:
08/01/2013 of the Ld. First Appellate Authority, New Delhi.
The first ground raised by the Revenue pertains to deleting the addition of Rs.57,46,800/- made on account of unexplained investment in jewellery.
During hearing, the ld. CIT-DR, Shri S.S. Rana, defended the addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer, by advancing arguments which are identical to the ground raised. It was contended that the assessee did not explain the source of investment made in the jewellery before the AO and only Shri Satnam Arora filed wealth tax return, wherein also, no valuation report was attached. It was pleaded that in the cases of remaining family members wealth tax return were not filed and even before the Ld. CIT(A), new claim was made with respect to Daughter-in-law. The crux of the argument is in support to the addition made by the Assessing Officer. On the other hand, Shri Salil Kapoor along with Shri Sanat Kapoor and Shri Sumit Lal Chandani, ld. counsel for the assessee, defended the impugned order by was also pleaded that the Ld. AO merely gave the credit of 500 gms. of jewellery in each case and the remaining jewellery was duly explained before the AO as well as before the Ld. CIT(A). It was also contended that the assessee surrendered Rs.30 lakhs, which covers the allegation made in the assessment order. A strong plea was raised that all the purchases made by the assessee are duly reflected in the balance sheet and the credit of the purchases made at the later stage, which are duly explained, was never given to the assessee. Our attention was invited to the chart available at page-4 of the impugned order and it was pleaded that surrender was made by the assessee because the necessary details could not be filed during search. So far as, the contention of the Ld. CIT-DR that fresh material/evidence was filed before the Ld. CIT(A), it was explained that no new material was filed by the assessee and further even the Revenue has not raised any ground with respect to violation of Rule-46A of the Rules.
2.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The facts, in brief, 29/08/2008, declaring total income of Rs.44,60,398/- and thereafter revised return was filed on 17/03/2009 at a total income of Rs.74,60,398/-. A search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was carried out in Kohinoor Foods Ltd. Group of cases including assessee on 15/12/2007. During search, ornaments weighing 7927.7 gms., valued at Rs.1,87,86,790/- was found out of which the jewellery weighing about 2214.4 gms was seized from the premises of the assessee. The assessee was asked to explain the source of remaining jewellery, while recording statement u/s 132(4) of the Act, during search action. The assessee surrendered Rs.50 lakh in the individual hands and offered Rs.30 lakh in his return under the head ‘Income from Other Sources’. The balance amount of Rs.25 lakh was offered in the case of Shri Jugal Kishore Arora, Brother of the assessee. The assessee vide reply dated 15/12/2009 filed the reply, which has been reproduced in the assessment order. The Ld. AO observed that during search on 05/12/2007, no valuation report of jewellery was found, therefore, the difference of Rs.2175 gms. was included in the surrendered amount of Rs.30 lakh in the in respect of source in the hands of Satnam Arora, Mrs. Rani Arora and Mrs. Ritakshi Arora (as mentioned in the chart available in assessment order) was filed by the assessee.
Therefore, the jewellery weighing 4237.2 gms was considered as explained and the remaining jewellery 3690.8 gms was treated as unexplained. The amount of Rs.57,46,800/- was added as unexplained investment u/s 69A of the Act.
2.2. On appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), the factual matrix was considered and the addition sustained by the Ld. AO was deleted against which the Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal.
2.3. If the observation made in the assessment order, conclusion drawn in the impugned order, material available on record and the submissions made from both sides are kept in juxtaposition and analyzed, we note that as on 31/03/2006 ( as per assessment order) total of 4237.20 gms jewellery was available with the family and to the tune of 3690.80 gms (7928.00 gms minus 4237.20 gms) remained to be unexplained, which resulted into addition of Rs.87,46,800/-. Since, the assessee had declared Rs.30 lakh Rs.57,46,300/-. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee explained with evidence and the valuation report of the assessee was duly considered along with the submissions as is evident from para-5 onwards of the impugned order. We observe that before the AO as well as before the Ld. CIT(A), the bills with respect to purchase of jewellery of Shri Satnam Arora, Rani Arora were produced and the same were duly reflected in the balance sheet of the assessee. The factual matrix of acquirement of jewellery and the jewellery, which was owned after the surrender has been explained in para-6 onwards (tables) of the impugned order. The totality of facts, clearly states that the total family jewellery of 10882.63 gms is more than the jewellery found at the time of search i.e. 7928 gms and the assessee has already surrendered Rs.30 lakh, therefore, we find no infirmity in the conclusion of the Ld. CIT(A), deleted the part addition sustained by the Ld. AO, resultantly, this ground of the Revenue is having no merit, consequently, dismissed.
The next ground raised by the Revenue pertains to deleting the addition of Rs.9,80,000/- made on account of CIT-DR is identical to the ground raised by submitting that the source of the impugned amount was not explained by the assessee, therefore, the Ld. AO rightly made the addition. On the other hand, the Ld. counsel for the assessee, explained that Rs.4,80,000/- was found from the bedroom of the Daughter-in-law of the assessee and out of the amount of Rs.5,20,000/-, the amount of Rs.2 lakhs was withdrawn from the bank on 26/10/2017 and remaining 3 lakh was withdrawn on 07/11/2007. With respect to household expenses, the ld. counsel explained that there is huge withdrawal of Rs.58,25,893/- during the year.
3.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We have perused the submission of the of the assessee dated 05/02/2012, 16/10/2012, before the Ld. CIT(A) and also considered the submissions made before us. Out of the total amount of Rs.9,80,000/- (recorded in the panchnama), found during search, the amount of Rs.4,80,000/- was found from the bedroom of daughter-in-law of the assessee Miss. Ritakshi and the amount of Rs.5,20,000 from the bedroom of the withdrawn from the bank on 26/10/2007 and Rs.3 lakh on 07/11/2007. Admittedly, the amount of Rs.58,25,893/- was withdrawn as household expenses. The amount of Rs.5,20,000/- was found from the bedroom of the assessee, which was explained. The totality of facts, clearly indicates that the Ld. CIT(A) has examined the issue in a justifiable manner in which we don’t find any infirmity, resultantly, this ground of the Revenue is also having merit. Therefore, the conclusion drawn by the Ld. FAA is upheld.
Finally, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
This order was pronounced in the open court in the presence of the ld. representatives from both sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 09/11/2017.
Sd/- Sd/- (N. K. Saini) (Joginder Singh) लेखा सद"य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �या#यक सद"य /JUDICIAL MEMBER Delhi; �दनांक Dated : 09/11/2017 f{x~{tÜ? P.S/.�न.स. आदेश क� $#त&ल'प अ(े'षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ/ / The Appellant 2. 01यथ/ / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयु3त(अपील) / The CIT, New Delhi. 4. आयकर आयु3त / CIT(A)- , Delhi उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण,/ ITAT, Delhi