TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 581X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vide DD No.56463. A perusal of stock record of M/s reflections as on 31/03/2008 reveals that these painting forms part of the closing stock. Therefore, since the same have duly been accounted for in the books of accounts of the assessee and forms part of stock-in-trade, the addition thereof is not justified. So far as the addition on account of unexplained jewellery is concerned, we are of the opinion that the same is a factual one requiring reconciliation of the jewellery quantity. The onus is on assessee to reconcile the excess jewellery found during search operations. The Ld. AR has contended that the jewellery was held by the assessee under common hotchpotch and other family members had sufficient taxable income to acquire the jewllery. Hence, without delving much deeper into the issue, we remit the matter back to the Ld. AO for re-adjudication with a direction to the assessee to reconcile the quantities of jewellery found during the search. Resultantly this ground of assessee’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes. - I.T.A. No. 1242/Mum/2012 - - - Dated:- 8-12-2017 - SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM For The Assessee : J.D.Mistry ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xplained paintings has been further enhanced to ₹ 244.95 Lacs vide rectification order u/s 154 dated 25/03/2010 since computational errors were noted in the quantum assessment. Both the additions are the subject matter of this appeal. 2.5 The unaccounted jewellery for ₹ 41.81 Lacs consist of excess gold jewellery found during search weighing around 3566.30 grams valued at ₹ 25.27 Lacs excess diamond jewellery weighing around 106.90 grams, 15.510 carat valued at ₹ 16.53 Lacs. 2.6 The assessee produced various evidences to demonstrate the date / cost acquisition of the paintings. However, not convinced, Ld. AO rejected the evidences submitted by the assessee with respect to certain paintings valued at ₹ 244.95 Lacs, the details of which has been provided in the Annexure attached to quantum assessment order and added the same to the income of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee contested the same with partial success before Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 19/12/2011. The assessee re-submitted the various evidences to prove the year, cost and source of acquisition of the painting in the following manner:- No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and therefore, additions thereof was not justified. Per Contra, Ld. DR contended that the assessee could not discharge the onus of proving the source of paintings with cogent evidences and therefore, additions were justified. 5. We have carefully heard the rival contentions and perused relevant material on record. We find that the assessee has suffered aggregate addition of ₹ 244.95 Lacs against 31 number of paintings which are listed in annexure attached with the quantum assessment order. The Ld. CIT(A) has already allowed relief with respect to one painting listed at Serial No. 1 in the above table and valued at ₹ 20 Lacs. Hence, the dispute before us is with respect to 30 painting valued at ₹ 224.95 Lacs, each of which we shall deal in subsequent paragraphs. 6. The painting listed at Serial No. 2 consists of two paintings valued at ₹ 5 Lacs ₹ 25 Lacs respectively. These paintings were found at Swapnalok and crafted by an Artist namely Anjoli Ela Menon. The documentary evidences including photographs of the paintings have been placed at Page Numbers 44 to 49 of the paper book. These painting are stated to be received by the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8. Swapnalok 5 K.H.Ara Nude Water Colour 27x20 6,00,000/- 9. Swapnalok 7 A.R.Chugta Lady Holding Jug Water Colour 20x14 30,00,000/- 10. Swapnalok 8 A.R.Chugta Lady Music Instrument Water Colour 20x14 30,00,000/- Total 1,46,75,000/- The assessee, in the paper book, has placed various documentary evidences to support the contentions that these painting were acquired by the assessee long time back in earlier assessment years in the following manner:- No. Location Valuation Ref. No. Artist Name Supporting Evidences 1. Dalamal 8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he closing stock. Therefore, since the same have duly been accounted for in the books of accounts of the assessee and forms part of stock-in-trade, the addition thereof is not justified. Consequently, the same stands deleted. 8. The Seven painting aggregating to ₹ 33 Lacs belonging to various artist listed at Serial No. 4 are stated to have been received by the assessee on consignment basis. The documentary evidences in support thereof have been placed at Page Numbers 88 to 96 of the paper book . One painting of Sharmi Chowdhary is supported by the request of the artist to the assessee vide letter dated 15/04/2007 to sell the same. The five painting of artist Rajendra Patil is confirmed by the letter of the artist and further, the artist subsequently, vide letter dated 07/05/2007, has duly acknowledged the receipt back of these painting from the assessee. Similarly, the painting of Jagan Chowdhuri is supported with a letter dated 17/04/2007. In our considered opinion the assessee, by submitting these evidences, duly discharged the onus casted on him to substantiate the source of these painting. The onus was shifted on revenue to negate the evidences adduced by the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
