2017 (6) TMI 642

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ee within the time prescribed. We have perused the reasons given in the affidavit by Shri B.C.Jain, AR of the assessee. We are satisfied that the delay in filing the appeal was owing to a reasonable and sufficient cause. The delay in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned. 3. Ground No.1 raised by the assesee reads as follows :- "1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming addition of Rs.1,08,895/ - in respect of jewellery. " 4. The Assessee is an individual. There was a search and seizure operation carried out in the business premises of the assessee. The assessee belong to the Inland group of cases which is engaged in inland transport and courier services .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 895/- Less : Value of 500 gms of ornaments Rs.8,03,000/-   Rs.1,08,895/-   Rs.1,08,895/- is, therefore, treated as undisclosed income of the assessee and it is added to his total income." 6. On appeal by the assessee the CIT(A) confirmed the order of AO. 7. We have heard the rival submissions. In the light of the admitted fact that the assessee's wife owned up the jewellery, the assessment of the same in the hands of the assessee was not permissible. The assessee's wife is assessed to tax by ACIT, Central Circle-1, Kolkata. There is no reason why the addition should be made in the hands of the assessee. The addition is accordingly directed to be deleted. 8. Ground No.2 raised by the assessee reads as follows :- "2. Tha .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... p;                             = 716985 Hence Rs. 716985/- is treated as income earned but not disclosed by the assesee during F.Y. 2009-10. Hence it is added to his total income." On the above basis an addition of Rs. 7,16,985/- was made to the total income of the assessee. 10. On appeal by the assessee, the CIT(A) deleted the aforesaid addition. According to the CIT(A) since there was no evidence of any suppressed receipts for the period over and above three months, no presumption can be drawn that there would exist suppressed sales for the remaining nine months of the previous year also. The CIT( .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X