TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 956X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see cannot give any explanation as the jewellery did not belong to him or that the onus was not upon the assessee to explain the same. When the assessee’s explanation has not been accepted, for being devoid of cogency, assessee is raising ground that the jewellery did not belong to the assessee, rather it belonged to his daughter. As find that the submission is not at all sustainable. CIT(A) in the case of assessee’s daughter has clearly held that the said addition on account of jewellery was not sustainable in her hands. In this background, we find that orders of authorities below are very cogent and correct. The shifting of stand by the assessee now de hors any cogent explanation for the source of impugned jewellery found, is not at all sustainable. - Decided against assessee. - ITA No.5732/Mum/2016 - - - Dated:- 4-9-2017 - Shri Shamim Yahya, Accountant Member For The Appellant : Shri Dilip J.Thakkar Shri Rajesh P.Shah For The Respondent : Shri V.Janardhanan ORDER This appeal by the assessee is directed against order of learned CIT(A) dated 21.07.2016 and pertains to assessment year 2012-2013. 2. The grounds of appeal read as under:- 1. On the fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d found to be in order. ii) 567.200 grams- The assessee explained this jewellery was received as gift by Smt. Darshita. However, the assessee's explanation is not acceptable as the assessee failed to provide any documentary evidence in this regard. The claim of gift is made now after a gap of two years of search. iii) 584.70 grams- The assessee explained there was a Wealth-Tax assessment in the case of the assessee in A.Y. 1992-93 wherein the valuation has been enhanced by ₹ 3,50,000/-. The assessee has submitted relevant copies of the said order. The assessee has submitted relevant copies of the said order. The assessee submitted that out of such amount of ₹ 2,00,000/- pertaining this jewellery. In view of the above, the explanation of the assessee s acceptable and found to be in order, iv) 126.55 grams- The assessee submitted that the jeweller/ pertain to Shh Jehil Thakkar and submitted the valuation report. The submission and explanation is found to be acceptable. v) 349.00 grams- In this context the assessee explained the source stating that Shri Ashok Thakkar has withdrawn cash from fhe bank accounf and purchased such amounts. However, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e hands of the assessee. As far as remaining jewellery worth 1136.21 grams is concerned, even though the assessee has tried to show the source in the hands of Smt. Darshita and Smt. Smita Thakkar, all the jewellery valuing 1136.21 grams is considered as unexplained investments in the hands of Smt. Smita Thakkar, and this fact is evident from the Panchanama and valuation reports in the Departmental Valuers during the search proceedings on 10/08/2011 and is dealt with separately in the order of Smt. Smita Thakkar. With reference to quantification of addition is concerned, considering the fact that the valuers while valuing the jewellery have taken the rate per gram at ₹ 2,375/- which fact has been accepted by the assessee in his submission dated 24/03/2014 in para 3, the same is taken as rate per gram while determining the quantum of the unexplained investments. Considering the above, facts, an addition of ₹ 10,02,226/- (421.99 grams X ₹ 2375/-) is made on account of unexplained jewellery under section 69A of the Act in the hands of the assessee. 5. Upon assessee s appeal, learned CIT(A) elaborately considered the issue. He confirmed the act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the appellant vide his statement dated 28.09.2011, while explaining the source of investments made in jewellery found during the search at residence in response to Q.7 wherein he was apprised of the fact that his request cannot be considered fully as explained and also already allowed part of the jewellery found in locker no. 321 at Bank of India, Walkeshv/ar Branch, Mumbai as per Instruction No. 1916 and considering his family status etc and hence the Authorised Officer/Assessing Officer has expressed that he can allow the jewellery valued on person at the residence can be considered as allowed as per Instruction No. 1916 and the family etc., apart from the jewellery allowed out of the jewellery found in the locker no. 321, the balance jewellery was seized as per annexure J dated 28.09.201 1 and on being asked to comment the appellant has stated that he has no comments to offer. 7.4.3 Similarly the appellant's wife Smt. Smita Thakkar in her statement dated 28.09.2011 in response to Q.4 wherein she was asked to explain the source of jewellery found in Locker No. 321, she has confirmed the jewellery found in locker no. 321 consists of Gold Diamond jewellery are va ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om 1997 till 2000 has been given. At one point the appellant has tried to explain the source of above referred jewellery treated as unexplained investments in his hands through these withdrawals, at another point the appellant submits that the jewellery under considerations belonged to his daughter Smt. Darshita J Talim. These two explanations are contradictory to each other. 7.4.6 During the course of assessment proceedings, the appellant has submitted the appellate order in the case of his wife Smt. Smita A Thakkar for A.Y. 2012-13. From perusal of the said order dated 31.03.2016 of the Ld. CIT(A)-52, Mumbai in the appellant's wife case in Appeal No. CIT(A)-52/IT/AC-CC-6(4)/l 98/2015-16 it is observed that while deleting the protective addition made in her case at ₹ 10,02,226/- the Ld. CIT(A) has held as under. I have considered the facts of the case, submissions and contentions of the assessee as also the order of the AO. Since the ownership of the jewellery has been claimed by Shri Ashok Late Shri Ashok J Thakkar Thakkar and he has also mentioned sources of purchases of the jewellery as withdrawal from his own bank account and also bank account of his H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se discussed above, I am of the considered opinion that the Ld. AO was justified in treating the investments in 421.99 grams of jewellery as unexplained. Hence the addition made on this account at ₹ 10,02,226/- is CONFIRMED. 7. Against the above order, assessee is in appeal before the ITAT. 8. I have heard both the Counsel and perused the records. Learned Counsel of the assessee could not dispute that the assessee s submission regarding the source of the impugned addition for jewellery were not cogent. However, he emphasized that the jewellery did not belong to the assessee. That the jewellery was found from the bank account in the name of assessee s married daughter. That assessment made in the case of the married daughter cannot lead to confirmation of addition in the present case in assessee s hands. 9. I find that assessee s plea that the jewellery did not belong to the assessee but belong to the married daughter is not sustainable in light of the fact that in search the assessee s wife Smt. Smita Thakkar in her statement dated 28.09.2011 in response to Q.4 wherein she was asked to explain the source of jewellery found in Locker No. 321, she has confirmed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
