TMI Blog2004 (5) TMI 585X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nging to her daughters-in-law, Smt. Sunita and Urmil Batra, was also included in the jewellery recorded in the 'Panchnamas'. The entire jewellery except for jewellery of value of ₹ 1,66,348 has been held to be explained. This way a sum of ₹ 1,66,348 has been added in the income of the assessee from undisclosed sources in the assessment year under appeal. The assessment was confirmed on appeal by the learned CIT(A). It is seen that while confirming the assessment, the Revenue authorities have relied upon orders passed under sections 132(5) and 132(1) of the IT Act. 3. I have heard both the parties. The assessee is wife of Shri Chaman Lal Batra, proprietor of M/s. Bhagwan Das Chaman Lal. The premises of above concern we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied as the assessee in her return of wealth for the assessment year 1984-85 filed on 16th Nov., 1984, i.e., much before the search, had disclosed jewellery having gross weight of 2,888.8 gms. which was more than total jewellery found in the search. However, instead of considering aforesaid latest return or valuation report, the AO wrongly considered valuation report for assessment year 1978-79 and thus did not give benefit of item disclosed which had slight variation in the description. The Revenue authorities should have given benefit of weight of jewellery disclosed while determining the jewellery possessed by the assessee and her family members. The learned counsel for the assessee further explained that the assessee had 2,888.8 gms. gro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... am, therefore, of the view that Revenue authorities were not justified in sustaining addition in dispute solely on the basis of finding recorded in orders passed under sections 132(5) and (12) of IT Act. The detailed explanations of the assessee are not shown to be objectively considered by the Revenue authorities. It is further not clear from record as to why benefit of jewellery disclosed by the assessee in assessment year 1984-85 in the return of wealth submitted before the date of search, was not allowed. Likewise limited benefit has been allowed to other family members and not as claimed by them. 6. It is further clear from record that jewellery of value of ₹ 13,89,530 was found from the premises subjected to search. It has be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
