TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 681X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ead it differently was because of mistake that crept in the order of the Tribunal when it recorded that certain gold jewellery had been seized from the assessee. However, as has already been noted above, no gold jewellery was seized from the assessee. Thus, the case of the assessee and his brother, Ravindra Kishore was same and identical. There is thus, no material to justify the addition on account of undisclosed gold jewellery. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Income Tax Appeal No. 234 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 11-12-2017 - Hon'ble Bharati Sapru And Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh, JJ. For the Appellant : Kshitij Shailendra For the Respondent : Shubham Agarwal ORDER Heard Sri Kshitij Shailendra, learned Counsel fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... firm, M/s Kishore Jewellers. His brother, Ravindra Kishore was one of the other three partners of that firm. On 04.08.1998 the assessee and his brother, Ravindra Kishore were subjected to search proceedings under Section 132(1) of the Act. Consequently, block assessment orders under Section 158 BC of the Act were passed in their individual cases. By order dated 29.08.2000 the assessee was subjected to block assessment for the period 01.04.1989 to 04.08.1998. Based on a document No.B-31 seized during the course of the search proceeding, the assessing officer made an addition of ₹ 1,35,800/- in respect of gold jewellery weighing 302.450 Grams. A similar addition of ₹ 40,490/- had been made in the case of the assessee's ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ifference in the nature of the entries or the manner in which the same have been recorded in respect to Manoj and Salil. Then, learned Counsel for the assessee submits that in the case of the assessee's brother, Ravindra Kishore, the Tribunal accepted the explanation furnished that the jewellery, that was the subject matter of addition was infact stock in trade of the firm, M/s Kishore Jewellers and it was used only for display purpose by the ladies of the house during the marriage of Salil. That order of the Tribunal has been accepted by the revenue. It has thus, attained finality. However, in the case of assessee, that was identical to the case of Ravindra Kishore, the explanation furnished by the assessee had been disbelieved a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd the manner in which they have been recorded is same in both cases. The document having been read by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee's brother, we do not see how the Tribunal could have read it differently in the case of the present assessee. Perhaps, the only reason to read it differently was because of mistake that crept in the order of the Tribunal when it recorded that certain gold jewellery had been seized from the assessee. However, as has already been noted above, no gold jewellery was seized from the assessee. Thus, the case of the assessee and his brother, Ravindra Kishore was same and identical. There is thus, no material to justify the addition of ₹ 1,35,800/- on account of undisclosed gold jewellery. Nor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
