TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 68X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld that:- We find that though there is no proper explanation given by the assessee as per the availability of the cash, because the bank withdrawal and household expenditure and the contribution made by the wife is not subject to proper verification. In any case, some availability of cash with house wife with old savings and some with the assessee cannot be ruled out. We hold that out of 5,25,000/-, sum of ₹ 2,25,000/- may be treated as explained in view of cash withdrawals and availability of some cash with his wife who is elderly lady. Thus, assessee gets a part relief of ₹ 2,25,000/- and the balance is ₹ 3 lacs is confirmed. - Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. - I.T.A. No. 1397/DEL/2015 - - - Dated:- 30-5-2018 - Shri Amit Shukla, Judicial Member And Shri O. P. Kant, Accountant Member Appellant by : Shri G.N. Gupta, Adv. Respondent by : Ms. Paramita Tripathi, CIT-DR ORDER Per Amit Shukla, J. M. The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against the impugned order dated 25.11.2014 passed by Ld. CIT (Appeals)-XXX, New Delhi for the quantum of assessment passed u/s.143(3)/153A for the Assessment Year 2011-12. In the grounds ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idavit is merely self serving statement, therefore, he added the entire jewellery amounting to ₹ 37,17,892/-. 3. Apart from that, cash amounting to ₹ 5,25,000/- was found to which assessee had explained that it was pin money of his wife and his savings from salary over a period of time. However, Assessing Officer rejected this contention and added the amount of ₹ 5,25,000/- as unexplained u/s.69A. 4. Ld. CIT (A) partly confirmed the investment made on account of unexplained jewellery after observing and holding as under: During the appellate proceedings, Ld. AR argued that before the assessing officer, the appellant vide letter dt. 3.12.2012 has filed detailed explanation for jewellery found where the appellant claimed that assessee's wife was filing wealth tax return regularly and also filed valuation report of the jewellery as on 31.07.1976 in assessee s wife s hand. Vide said letter, the appellant has also filed copy of the valuation report filed alongwith the wealth tax return of Raj Kumar Binay Kumar Kakrania (HUF) and claimed that 683.1 gm of gold was received from Partial partition of HUF by the appellant. Total jewellery claimed by the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t order is directed to give relief for the value of 600 gm of jewellery and balance addition is confirmed. The grounds of appeal are partly allowed. Regarding cash amount, the ld. CIT (A) confirmed the entire addition in the following manner:- I have carefully perused the above table. The appellant or his wife is not maintaining any book of account in support of cash withdrawal or cash book as such. Secondly, in none of the financial year, total cash withdrawal from the bank including cash income of the appellant s wife exceeds even ₹ 2 lacs. Household withdrawal whole financial year from 2004-05 to 2010-11 is ranging from ₹ 60,000/- to ₹ 98,895/-. The maximum figure of household expense is less than ₹ 1 lakh annually approximately i.e ₹ 8000 per month. A family residing in Chitaranjan Park cannot support family with meagre household withdrawal in the range of ₹ 5000/- - ₹ 8200/- per month. Therefore, in my view, such cash withdrawal from the bank and cash income of the appellant s are in any case at the most, sufficient to meet household expense and cannot explain the source of cash found. In any case, the assessing officer has g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ort of jewellery as on 31st July, 1976 filed along with wealth tax return have been heavily relied upon. Uptill Assessment Year 1992-93 his wife was filing wealth tax return wherein this much quantity of jewellery was regularly shown and thereafter it has not been filed for the reason that the wealth tax limit was increased and his wife was no longer required to submit the wealth tax return. The other part of the jewellery weighing 683.1 gm has been stated to be received from bigger HUF after partial partition and in support of which, the wealth tax return in the case of bigger HUF was filed to show that the bigger HUF had the jewellery. The jewellery was divided after the partition and this much of jewellery has been stated to be bequeathed upon the assessee. The reason given by the ld. CIT (A) for not accepting the assessee s contention is that, the wealth tax return was filed 19 years earlier and it is difficult to believe that the same jewellery continued till the date of search. Such reason alone cannot be held to be tenable without any contrary material found during the course of search, because if the overall quantity of jewellery has been said to be available with the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 98875 22875 62875 NIL 112800 177800 2007-08 94700* 94700 NIL NIL NIL 22000 199800 2008-09 60000 60000 NIL NIL NIL 146244 346044 2009-10 40000 80000 40000 120000 NIL 128500 474544 2010-11 60000 98895 38895 118895 NIL 80000 554544 9. Ld. CIT (A) held that the household shown by the assessee is very less, and therefore, the cash withdrawal made from the bank and the cash income of the assessee is only sufficient to meet the household expense. He only gave credit of ₹ 24,000/- on adhoc basis. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
