TMI Blog2001 (12) TMI 527X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earch under section 132 in the month of February, 1996. Subsequently, a search under section 132 was also conducted at the premises of the assessee whose husband Shri Rajiv Newatia was working as an Executive with Kedia Group. During the search operation, a locker belonging to the assessee was opened and searched on 11-3-1996. Consequently, a notice under section 158BC was issued on 11-9-1996 requiring the assessee to file her return of income for the block period 1-4-1985 to 4-3-1996. In compliance thereof, the assessee filed her return of income for the block period declaring her total undisclosed income at Nil. The assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer computing the undisclosed income of the assessee at Rs. 87,800 vide hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he validity of the said search, we are of the considered opinion that a notice issued under section 158BC in the present case as well as the assessment made in pursuance of the same are tenable in law. 6. In ground No. 2, the assessee has disputed the addition of Rs. 20,300 made by the Assessing Officer on account of undisclosed income related to assessment year 1990-91. 7. In this case the assessee had filed a return of income for assessment year 1990-91 on 14-10-1991 declaring a total income of Rs. 21,500 and the same was also processed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(1)( a ) accepting the income returned by the assessee. Along with the said return of income, the assessee had filed a capital account showing an opening b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the assessee along with her return of income prior to the date of search as undisclosed income of the assessee in the block assessment. We, therefore, delete the same. 8. Ground No. 3 relates to the addition of Rs. 60,000 on account of unexplained investment made by the assessee in gold ornaments. 9. During the course of search the assessee was found in possession of gold ornaments worth Rs. 1,00,000. While explaining the said investment, it was stated by the assessee that gold ornaments worth Rs. 40,000 were received by her at the time of marriage and the balance ornaments worth Rs. 60,000 were purchased by her from the amount available in her capital account. The Assessing Officer accepted the assessee s explanation regarding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to reject the assessee s explanation that the gold ornaments of the value of Rs. 60,500 have been purchased by her from the amount available in her capital account. As such, considering all the facts of the case, we are of the opinion that there was sufficient evidence in the form of capital account filed by the assessee along with her return of income to show the availability of funds with the assessee for investment in gold ornaments to the extent of Rs. 60,000 and in that view of the matter, we find no justification in Assessing Officer s action in treating the same as undisclosed income of the assessee. We, therefore, delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer on this count. 10. Ground No. 4 relates to the deposit of Rs. 7,50 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
