TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (7) TMI 419
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the Department. As per ld. Assessing Officer assessee had submitted evidence for 4437 grams out of these and the balance of 16619.550 grams was accepted as undisclosed income in a statement recorded at the time of search. However, in return of income filed assessee had disclosed only 924.78 grams. As per assessee the balance represented gold jewellery deposited by family members and persons who were related to its business. Gold jewellery claimed by the assessee as belonging to its family members/relatives and parties related to its business were as under:- Sl.No Name Weight in Grams 1 Smt. Bhagwanti Jain 2416 2 S.A. Dilip Kumar 1798 3 Smt. Anjana Bai 1750 4 Mrs. Kanchana Bai 1635 5 M/s. Gouthamchand & Sons 1060 6 N. Amarchand 1050 7 M/s. Dilipkumar & Sons 850 8 M/s. Amarchand HUF 750 9 Shruti 730 10 Manisha 680 11 Nitin Kumar 675 12 Praful Kumar 660 13 Sankesh 610 14 Smt. Lalita Bai 450 15 Gouthamchand Surana 388 16 N. Jegadesh 250 17 R.I. Deva 176 18 G. Sampathkumar 170 19 Anupdas HUF 166 20 Mr. V. Ramprakash 165 21 Mr. R. Somasundaram 115 Total 16544 However, ld. Assessing Officer was o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ad affirmed depositing gold jewellery totaling 15502 grams with the assessee. Further, as per assessee gold jewellery given by goldsmith which were relating to its business, came to 1042 grams and this was also supported by affidavits from concerned persons. Contention of the assessee was that ld. Assessing Officer had relied on gold deposit agreements found at the time of search, aggregating 4437 grams ignoring the availability of gold jewellery received from very same family members which were reflected in respective VDIS declaration/Wealth Tax returns. Thus, as per assessee a part of the source was accepted whereas other part was rejected. As per assessee this was not a logical approach. Assessee in its submission before ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) categorized the gold jewellery deposits received from its family members and others and explained the difference in gold jewellery as under:- "Undisclosed investment - 21,456.550 gms Net Weight - 20,956.690 gms Converted to 22 carat purity - 18,302.790 gms Source for the gold jewellery Source Quantity in terms of Grams Category A- As per deposits agreements relatives 3831.00 Category B- As per V....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....trongly assailing the orders of the lower authorities submitted that jewellery weighing of 15502 grams received from relatives/family member and 1042 grams received from its business associates who were gold smiths were supported by respective affidavits. As per the ld. Authorised Representative these were ignored and rejected without any reasons. Contention as per ld. Authorised Representative was that out of the gold deposits claimed by the assessee from its fifteen family members aggregating 15502 grams, ld. Assessing Officer partly accepted 4437 grams and rejected the balance despite their jewellery holding being reflected in their respective VDIS/ Wealth Tax returns filed, well prior to the search. As per ld. Authorised Representative affidavits filed by these persons were rejected without any verification. According to him, lower authorities placed undue importance on the statement given by the assessee during the course of search when strong evidence to the contrary was produced by the assessee. According to him, addition was fastened on assessee even without considering the purity factor. Neither the affidavits were verified nor the contentions of the assessee were properly....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g Officer Gold reflected in VDIS Gold Deposit reflected in WT Return 1 Mrs. Kanchana Bai AACPB6980G 1635 450 1650 2 Nitin Kumar ACRPN9209M 675 250 675 3 Sankesh ARYPS8168C 610 200 610 4 S.A. Dilip Kumar ADPPD8896D 1798 1749 1257 541 5 N. Amarchand AABPA8645G 1050 350 970 80 6 Smt. Anjana Bai AAFPD4331A 1750 1000 1784 7 M/s. Amarchand HUF AACHA2068N 750 438 750 8 M/s. Dilip & Sons HUF AADHD6701N 850 1184 9 Smt. Bhagwanti Jain AEYPJ4322A 2416 1505 912 10 Praful Kumar AITPP1771G 660 660 11 Shruti ARYPS3028H 730 730 12 Manisha AHVPM1252G 680 680 13 M/s. Goutham chand & Sons AALHS6983B 1060 1060 14 Gourthamchand Surana ADVPG4975E 388 388 15 Smt. Lalita Bai ACUPK7889H 455 1130 15502 4437 5382 11184 No doubt statement given u/s.132(4) of the Act can be used as an evidence against the person making such statement in any proceedings under the Act. Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. S. Jayala....