Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (4) TMI 632 - AT - Income TaxAddition on account of unexplained investment in jewellery - Validity of a search - Held that:- Validity of a search and seizure u/s 132 has to have a clear cut nexus with the warrant of authorization, which is the main foundation of entire proceedings on search and seizure. In the present appeal, the warrant of search was in the name of Shri Harish Ashumal Keshwani whereas the locker in which the jewellery was found (Locker No. 270) was in the name of Smt. Poonam H. Keshwani as the first holder and her husband Shri Harish Ashumal Keshwani was only the second holder. Further, the search warrant in the name of the assessee Shri Harish Ashumal Keshwani for the search of residential premises at 14, Triveni Park, Behind Akota Stadium, Baroda as per ‘Panchnama’ dated 23rd October, 2002 cannot cover search for locker no. 270, UTI Bank, Gotri Road, Baroda and belonging to Smt. Poonam H. Keshwani and Shri Harish A. Keshwani in the joint names. Therefore, since there was no authorization for search for Locker No. 270 situated in altogether different premises and the locker being in the name of Smt. Ponam H. Keshwani as the first holder, the said jewellery cannot be considered in the block assessment of Shri Harish A. Keshwani, the assessee. We, accordingly, order deletion of ₹ 2,21,782/- on account of jewellery and silver utensils found in locker no. 270.- Decided in favour of assessee Addition on account of household goods - Held that:- Without any material found during the course of search to show that the assessee had made unexplained investment or had incurred unexplained expenditure, it could not be held that the assessee has earned any undisclosed income which was spent for making such investment or expenditure. In the case of Pooja Bhatt v. Assistant Commissioner (1999 (5) TMI 603 - ITAT MUMBAI ), the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal has held that block assessment is separate and distinct from regular assessment and in the block assessment, addition can be made only on the basis of material found during the course of search. As such, considering the facts of the case and keeping in view the legal position emanating from the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, we are of the view that the additions made by the assessing officer were outside the purview of the block assessment and the learned Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in confirming the same. - Decided in favour of assessee
|