Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI & SHRI K.N.CHARY
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.
Despite notice to the assessee by the registered AD as per noting of ordersheet dated 01.02.2021 the case was fixed for hearing on 31.03.2021. Despite this none appeared before us. On earlier occasions also on 31.03.2020, 31.09.2020 and 01.02.2021 none appeared on behalf of the assessee. In view of this, the appeal is decided on the merits of the case as per information available on record.
The ld DR heavily relied on the orders of the lower authorities.
We have carefully considered the contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. We have also considered the written submission made by the assessee before the lower authorities.
Brief facts of the case shows that during the course of search in locker No. 453 of HDFC Bank, New Delhi jewellery amounting to Rs. 2368185/- was found over and above jewellery worth of Rs. 11,30,814/- at the residence of the assessee. After granting the credit of 100 gms of jewellery to the individual assessee amounting to Rs. 258530/- the balance amount of addition of Rs. 3240469/- was made in the hands of the assessee on account of unaccounted jewellery. The ld AO denied the benefit of instruction No. 1916 with respect to the other family members for the reason that during the course of search the assessee stated that jewellery belongs to him. The assessee has also stated that he is filing high return of income and there is also high withdrawal therefore, the assessee’s withdrawal may be treated as enough for investment in these jewellery. Even otherwise the assessee submitted that assessee should have been allowed the deduction of 500 gms for wife and 100 gms for his son also over and above 100 gms jewellery for him. He submitted that from this angle the addition of Rs. 3240469/- may further to be reduced by Rs. 15,51,180/-. We find that the Page | 2