9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 68X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A) has erred: a) in ignoring the fact that the jewellery found at the time of search also belongs to the wife of the assessee as per the Wealth Tax Return filed by the assessee as Karta of HUF, and Wealth Tax Returns filed by his wife upto the some years back. b) In ignoring the fact that the locker from where the jewellery was found was in the joint name of the assessee and his wife and the plea that jewellery found at the time of search also belonged to his wife not considered. c) In ignoring the affidavit that was filed before the Id AO and the fact that the jewellery also belonged to his wife and the source of the jewellery that was explained in the affidavit. d) In confirming the additions so made by the Id AO except deleting t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rely self serving statement, therefore, he added the entire jewellery amounting to Rs. 37,17,892/-. 3. Apart from that, cash amounting to Rs. 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 Rs. 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 wif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to believe that same jewellery continued till the date of search as last wealth tax returns were filed for A.Y. 92-93 and search took place on 21.01.2011 after the lapse of 19 years. Neither the appellant's wife, or his HUF or he himself has wealth tax return subsequently for 19 years. Even the (affidavit filed in support of partial partition is dated 1.4.1995 (i.e. 16 yrs prior to date of search). Total jewellery claimed to belong to his wife and individual is weighing 872.05 gm & 683.1 gms respectively. Value of such jewellery also exceeds minimum non taxable wealth in recent years. Therefore, in absence of filing of wealth tax return in recent assessment years, it does not prove that the jewellery declared in 18- 19 years back stil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w, 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 given credit on account of pin money or small saving to the 24,000/- (Cash found Rs. 5,49.000/- - addition of cash u/s 69 A Rs. 5.25,000/-." 5. Before us the ld. counsel for the assessee, Mr. G.N. Gupta, Advocate submitted that first of all the observation of the Assessing Officer that the assessee had not filed wealth tax return is not correct, because earlier the assessee's wife was filing regular wealth tax return and a valuation report of jewellery held as on 31st July, 1976 in assessee's wife hand was duly disclosed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missions and on perusal of the relevant findings given in the impugned orders as well as the material referred to before us, we find that the total quantity of jewellery found from the residence and locker aggregated to 1383.90 gm. Out of the said quantity of jewellery, 872.05 gm has been stated to belonging to his wife and in support of that, valuation report 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 retu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence nothing can be treated as unexplained. Similarly would be in case of jewellery bequeathed upon assessee after partition of bigger HUF, because bigger HUF had jewellery which was duly disclosed in the wealth tax return. Thus, availability of jewellery with HUF also stands proved. Accordingly, the addition partly sustained by the ld. CIT (A) stands deleted. Thus, the ground on this point stands allowed. 8. Regarding cash found, the assessee had given the availability of cash out of bank withdrawal household's expenditure and cash available with his wife in the following manner:- Financial Year Bank withdraw als by the assessee for household Household expenditur e (as per chart attached as annexure D) Contribution by wife (Balancing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
