9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 956X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in relying upon the views expressed in another Appellant's case by another CIT(A) who has no jurisdiction over this Appellant's case, while confirming the addition. 4. The Appellant craved leave to add to, alter and/or modify any of the above grounds of appeal." 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessment in this case was framed pursuant to the search action on Thakkar group. The impugned addition for the jewellery found was made by the Assessing Officer by elaborately bringing out the jewellery found and the assessee's explanation there upon. The Assessing Officer duly gave credit for the jewellery properly explained and made addition for an amount of Rs. 10,02,226 for the jewellery for which the assessee's explanation was not cogent. 4. The Assessing Officer's order in this regard may be gainfully referred as under:- "The total jewellery found is as under:- Jewellery from Locker of Bank of Baroda 1121.000 Jewellery from Locker of Bank of India 1502.000 Jewellery from Home 411.400 3034.400 Gold contents in Diamonds Jewellery 50.780 3085.180 Jewellery on person (Smt.Smita ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arch. ix) 222.77 grams- The assessee has failed to provide any explanation for the same jewellery. From the above, it is clear that the assessee failed to provide any n for jewellery valuing 1558.2 grams (567.200 + 349.00 + 72.99 + + 180.000). The explanation of the assessee is devoid of any merits is purely on after thoughts. The assessee had failed to explain the same during the search proceedings and post search proceedings. The assessee was asked to explain the same vide detail questionnaire dated 06/08/2013. However, the assessee failed to offer any explanation with supporting evidence. The assessee contends that the cash withdrawals were only meant for purchase of jewellery. The assessee never tried to this fact in any of the earlier submissions. Now after almost two and half years offer ye search proceedings were completed, the assessee is trying to explain the same without any basis or supporting evidence. Even, then the contention of the assessee that cash withdrawals during the marriage of their daughter Smt. Darshita Thakkar were only meant to purchase jewellery and not for any other expenses related to marriage is without any basis. Therefore, the reasoning of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... daughter Simt. Darshita Thakkar Talim who was residing at USA and hence the said investments in jewellery should not have been made in the hands of the appellant. The contentions of the appellant have been considered carefully. From the perusal of assessment order that the Ld. AO has computed the total jewellery found at 3251.480 gms. and held that out of same jewellery weighing 1558.2 grams [567.200 + 349.00 + 72.99 + 166.300 + 180.00) were unexplained. It is also observed that the total of 567.200 + 349,00 + 72.99 + 166.300 + 180.00 works out to be 1 335.49 grams whereas the Ld. AO has adopted the same at 1 558.2 grams. Hence there is difference of 222.71 grams and from perusal of Page 7 of assessment order it is observed that in Para 7.5 (ix) the Ld. AO has held that 222.71 grams of jewellery was found unexplained but the same was not included in above working. Hence, the total of 1558.2 grams have been correctly computed by the Ld. AO, however while giving break up of same the Ld. AO had omitted to include the said 222.71 grams of unexplained jewellery. Out of said lotal unexplained jewellery at 1558.2 grams the Ld. AO has considered 421.99 grams of jewellery as unexplained in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant. However the same was not accepted by the Ld. AO as the appellant had failed to submit any documentary evidence in the form of bills/vouchers. Similarly in respect of jewellery weighing 72.99 grams it was explained that the same was purchased out of cash withdrawals made by Shri Ashok Thakkar HUF. However the same was not accepted by the Ld. AO as the appellant had failed to submit any documentary evidence in the form of bills/vouchers. In view of these facts the Ld. AO considered total jewellery weighing 421.99 grams (349.00 grams + 72.99 grams) valued at Rs. 10,02,226/- as unexplained in the hands of the appellant. The said amount was also added on protective basis in the hands of appellant's wife Smt. Smita A Thakkar. 7.4.5 From the facts discussed above, it is evident that during the course of assessment proceedings, for the above referred jewellery weighing 421.99 grams the appellant had explained the sources of same as cash withdrawals made by him and his HUF. Even in appellate proceedings the appellant's Ld, AR vide his letter dated 07th July 2016 has explained that these two amount of jewellery of 349.00 grams and 72.99 grams were purchased in cash withdrawn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bai in the appellant's wife Srnt. Smita A Thakkar it is also observed that her claim that part of jewellery was purchased out of withdrawals has been rejected after holding as under. "Though the cash withdrawals from these bank accounts are verifiable, however, no supporting bills or vouchers for purchase of jewellery have been submitted by the assessee in this regard. No doubt, these withdrawals are very close to the dote of wedding. However, it cannot necessarily be said that these withdrawals were used for purchase of jewellery only and not for other expenses relating to the wedding. Therefore, considering the overall facts of the case, I am not inclined to give any benefit to the assessee, in respect of the above cash withdrawals." In the present case also the appellant has submitted that the above referred jewellery of Rs. 10,02,226/- has been purchased from the withdrawals made in cash, but no supporting evidence in the form of bills and vouchers have been submitted. The facts and circumstances on this issue are similar as that adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(A)-52, Mumbai in the case of Smt. Smita A Thakkar and hence respectfully following the above referred decision of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
