TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 348X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ailed to carry out any inquiry or verifications to justify the various additions made u/s 68 of the Act. Accordingly, we reverse the order of ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete all the additions. - Decided in favour of assessee - I.T.A. No.6710/Mum/2012 - - - Dated:- 5-12-2016 - SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM For The Assessee : Dr.P Daniel For The Revenue : Shri R K Shah ORDER PER RAJESH KUMAR, AM : This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order of Commissioner of Income Tax(A)-1, dated 14.8.2012 passed in the assessment order under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2008-09. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 3.3.2009 declaring total income at ₹ 36,230/- besides showing long term capital loss on the sale of jewellery at ₹ 1,48,588/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were issued and served upon the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was required to furnish bank statement and other supporting documents. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... husband. Similarly, in reply to question no.3 the assessee had submitted that jewellery comprised of diamond jewellery, silver utensil and gold but it was admitted that since sale of jewelry was made by her husband, she did not know about the exact items sold as of now. In reply to question no.5, the assessee specifically admitted to have received the jewellery from her grandparents and but the assessee was not knowing the exact details of jewellery given by her grandparents. 3. The AO did not find the contentions and submissions of the assessee as convincing and accordingly added the same to the total income of the assessee being sham transactions. The AO also observed that it was not possible that the lady was possessing the jewellery and allowed her husband to sell the jewellery without knowing the details of jewellery possessed and sold by her husband. The AO also added a sum of ₹ 3,99,000/- on account of cash deposited into the bank account u/s 68 of the Act as unexplained cash credits by rejecting the contention of the assessee that the said cash was received out of cash gift received at the time of her marriage. The AO also added a sum of ₹ 19,06,350/-u/s 68 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f investment made as Kisna Investment is also unexplained to this extent. Thus, the addition of ₹ 8,97,010/- made on this account is confirmed and appellant fails on Ground Nos.1,3 and 4 Aggrieved by the order of ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. Before us, the ld. AR vehemently contended that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and on law by confirming the order of the AO without verifying the various documents and materials produced before him during the course of appellate as well as assessment proceedings. In support of contention, the ld. AR had filed before us the copy of affidavit of assessee, copy of balance sheet as on 31.3.2007 and as on 31.3.2008 along with sworn affidavit regarding gifts received from the grandparents and also details of bills for the sale of jewellery. The ld AO has completely ignored these documents and material and did not made any further inquiry either from the jewellery shops where the same were sold or from the grandfather of the assessee whose affidavit affirming the gifts were filed before AO. He had proceeded to pass the assessment order on conjecture and surmises that the assessee has not received any jewellery ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o cash as per the details given in the balance sheet as at 31.3.2007 filed at pages 2 to 5 of the paper book. We also find from the details filed, a copy of the bank statement which are at pages 9 to 13 of the paper book showing that that the assessee has deposited cash on various dates to the tune of ₹ 3,99,000/- which was claimed to be deposited by the assessee out of the gift received at the time of marriage from her family members, relatives and other near and dear one as shoguns. This has been stated and confirmed by her at time of recording her statement during the course of assessment proceedings. Similarly, we find that the assessee has received two cheques of ₹ 9,89,010/- deposited on 16.2.2008 and ₹ 9,08,000/- deposited on 29.2.2008 and the same were deposited in the account No.0266101118158 maintained with Canara Bank, Kopri Colony Thane which was received by the assessee out of sale of jewellery. The assessee had also filed a copies of sales bills from the respective parties to whom the assessee had sold her jewellary copies of which are placed at pages 14 and 15 of the paper book. The assessee had also filed five copies of valuation report dated 17.12 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
