TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 508X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lery purchased with the hallmark stamp etc., Nowhere the assessee had stated that the jewellery seized was with hallmark stamping and guaranteed by seller in the form of invoice or bill. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the initial onus placed upon the assessee is not fully discharged. However it cannot be denied that a specified sum was paid by the assessee to jeweller, as recorded in the Axis Bank account copy. It is to be seen as to what was the rate prevailing on that date and whether the amount paid is sufficient to cover 340 grams of jewellery of specified karatage. Unless the description is available or given by the assessee to the A.O. it may be difficult, even for the A.O, to cross-verify the same. In the interest of sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome only an amount of ₹ 15,83,425/- was offered. With regard to the balance of the amount, the assessee submitted that 340 grams of gold jewellery was purchased at Madras and the payment was made through cheque. The assessee submitted that such amount was not considered at the time of search while recording the deposition from the assessee. Therefore, the assessee pleaded that the amount of ₹ 9,16,575/- (mentioned as ₹ 9,17,575/- by the Assessing Officer) be reduced from the amount of ₹ 25 lakhs. However, the Assessing Officer did not accept the explanation and added ₹ 9,17,575/- to the income admitted. He accordingly, determined the total income at ₹ 1,52,67,615/-. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that this of item of jewellery cannot be seen as an unaccounted investment. He observed that the difference between the amount originally disclosed and amount now offered in the return of income, therefore, should not be seen as an unfounded and opportunistic retraction because this reduction is on account of an erroneous assumption of fact, which is now corrected. On a careful consideration of the matter, however, it is seen that the stated purchase can be inferred as being made around 07.5.2011 being the date when the assessee's bank account was debited. This would be available for consideration only in the later assessment year A.Y. 2012-13. Even if the cheque payment is considered to be adequate evidence of the purchase in the absen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d investment of ₹ 25 lakhs for A.Y. 2011-12, nor from ₹ 44,21,500/- which in any case is only an aggregate value of jewellery found, inclusive of accounted items. He therefore confirmed the action of the AO in making the addition of ₹ 9,17,575/-. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) is erroneous to the extent it is prejudicial to the assessee. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition made of ₹ 9,17,575/- without considering the fact that the assessee purchased gold jewellery of the value of ₹ 9,17,575/- before t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to search and seizure operations conducted at the residential premises of the assessee on 03.08.2011. In fact, gold jewellery and silver articles of the value of ₹ 44,21,500 were found during the course of search and the assessee did not furnish detailed description of any of the gold jewellery. Having agreed to offer ₹ 25 lakhs as unexplained investment, in the form of purchase of jewellery, no further investigation was made on that aspect. A statement was recorded from the assessee under section 132(4) of the Act on 19.09.2011 i.e., after more than one month, reckoned from the date of search. The assessee could not fully explain the source for the investment in gold and, therefore, agreed to offer a sum of ₹ 25 lakhs tow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee could have brought all the details before the A.O. indicating the nature of gold purchased, description thereof, so that the A.O. could have compared the jewellery seized - and mentioned in the panchanama - with the jewellery which is said to have been purchased in the month of May, 2011. Neither before the A.O. nor before the Commissioner the assessee chose to give the description. 9.3 Even before us the assessee merely refers to bank statement indicating that a sum of ₹ 9,16,575 was encashed by Maharaj Shree Rajendra Jewellers. Neither the assessee could furnish the bill nor could furnish the detailed address of Maharaj Shree Rajendra Jewellers. Atleast by the time the return was filed the assessee could have furnished al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
