DIWAKAR SHARMA,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, NOIDA

O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order passed by the ld CIT(A)-4, Kanpur dated 09.12.2017 for Assessment Year 2014-15 raising following grounds of appeal:- “1. That on the facts of the case and under the law, the Id. CIT(A) had erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 32,40,469/-, made by the Id. AO on account of jewellery found during the course of search & seizure operation carried out u/s 132, while arbitrarily rejecting the explanation given by the assessee.

2. That on the facts of the case and under the law, the Id. CIT(A) ought to had appreciated that since the assessee's family consisted of self, wife and son, the benefit of total 700 gms. (lOOgms. + 500gms. + 100 gms.) should had been allowed instead of only lOOgms., as allowed by the Id. AO.

3. That on the facts of the case and under the law, the Id CIT(A) ought to had given due weightage to the assessee's claim that part of the jewellery was acquired at the time of marriage (more than 20years ago) and also that remaining jewellery was acquired by him either out of gifts received on various occasions after the marriage or out of purchase made by him from time to time (as per the ITR's filed by him year after year, the income declared were substantial).

2. The brief fact of the case shows that the assessee is an individual deriving income from salary, house property and other sources. The assessee filed his return of income on 10.09.2015 declaring total income of Rs. 4,84,02,690/-. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 09.10.2013 on the premises of the assessee of Shubhamna Buildtech Pvt. Ltd Group of cases. In view of the notice u/s 142(1) Page | 1 was issued on 18.08.2015. During the course of search jewellery amounting to Rs. 11,30,814/- was found from his residence and some jwellery from his bank locker. The assessee explained that the above jewellery was acquired by the assessee at the time of his marriage and part was purchased after his marriage which is now more than 20 years. He submitted that the assessee is showing substantially higher income and withdrawals are also substantial, so same is not undisclosed income of the assessee. The ld AO noted that as assessee has not filed any evidence regarding purchase and source of payment of jewellery and the entire jewellery belongs to him and the others members of the family. The ld AO considered instruction 1916 dated 11.05.94 accepted only 100 gms out of jewellery for himself only and thus made the addition to the total income of the assessee. The assessment order u/s 143(3) was passed on 30.03.2016 considered the total income of Rs. 5,60,65,159/-.

3. The assessee preferred appeal before the ld CIT(A). The ld CIT(A) confirmed the above addition dismissing the appeal of the assessee. Therefore, the assessee is in appeal before us.