TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 170X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g heard to the assessee. Addition on account unaccounted cash - Held that:- In the present case, it appears that the explanation of the assessee was that the cash found during the course of search was out of the withdrawals made by him and his wife. In our opinion, the authorities below had not appreciated the facts in right perspective. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to set aside this issue back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to be adjudicated afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. - ITA No. 7039/Del/2014 And ITA No. 7040/Del/2014 - - - Dated:- 29-9-2017 - Sh. N. K. Saini, AM And Sh. Kuldip Singh, JM For The Assessee : None For The Revenue : Smt. Param ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... explained by the assessee: 2.1 Because the accounts which were produced for the assessment and based on which the assessment was framed but not relied for withdrawals of the cash. 3. The appellant craves leave for addition, modification, alteration, amendment of any of the grounds of appeal. 4. Vide Ground Nos. 1 to 1.3, the grievance of the assessee relates to the enhancement of the income by ₹ 9,26,702/- on account of jewellery weighing 461.046 grams. 5. Facts of the case in brief are that a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was carried out on 21.01.2011 in M/s Dharampal Satyapal Group of cases to which the assessee belongs. The assessee filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such as gold chains, sovereigns, rings etc. on various occasions at the time of their birth and on festivals/family functions from paternal and maternal grandparents, uncles and other relatives. The assessee also explained that the jewellery purchased by the family from time to time came to 1287.660 grams weight wise and the remaining jewellery was received by the assessee/her sons at the time of marriage, births, on festivals and other family functions. The AO, however, did not find merit in the submissions of the assessee and made the addition of ₹ 41,04,306/- by observing as under: 6. In the submissions of the assessee, the only submission which could assist in the quantification of explained investment in jewellery is the jew ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and 100 gm to each male member. ( ii) Jewellery was purchased from time to time, total purchase of jewellery for which purchase bills were submitted was weighing 1287.660 gm of gold. ( iii) The appellant has filed valuation report dt. 4.8.1988 of govt. Approved Jeweller, Sh. Sunil Kumar who had valued the jewellery for wealth tax purpose. However, the appellant did not file wealth tax return. The valuation report proves that the jewellery were owned by the appellant since 1988. Therefore, source of such jewellery if at all can be asked only in A.Y. 89-90 and no addition can be made in the impugned assessment year 2011-12. He has relied on the decision of Patoa Bros Vs. CIT 133 1TR 672 (Gau) where it has been held that crucial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... son has been given by the ld. CIT(A) in support of his action. It is also noticed that the ld. CIT(A) had confirmed the addition of ₹ 34,23,008/- without assigning any cogent reason. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to set aside this issue back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to be adjudicated afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 11. Next issue vide Ground No. 2, relates to the sustenance of addition of ₹ 1,40,000/- on account unaccounted cash. 12. The facts related to this issue in brief are that during the course of search at the locker of the assessee, cash amounting to ₹ 1,40,000/- was found and seized. The AO added the said amount by observi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e evidence which could satisfactorily explain the availability of cash with the assessee on the date of search. The explanation of the assessee was that the cash of ₹ 8,85,000/- was withdrawn by his wife Smt. Poonam Gupta and he had withdrawn ₹ 11,00,000/- during the period April 2009 till the date of search. The AO did not find merit in the submission of the assessee, however, he had considered a sum of ₹ 2,75,490/- as explained and balance amount of ₹ 7,00,000/- was added to the income of the assessee. 18. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) who sustained the addition by observing that the finding of the AO that ₹ 7,00,000/- out of ₹ 9,75,490/- was unexplained appears to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
