TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 1525X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , namely, Arvind Agrawal and Subhash Agrawal under Section 132 on 6th January, 2009. Following jewelleries were found during the course of search from different premises of the assessee s family and family of his brother :- S.No. Particulars Gold Jewellery Diamond Jewellery 1. As found during the course of search from different premises 13032.452 gms. 323.7Cts 2. As disclosed by the assessee and his other family members 14400.020 gms. 239.11 Cts 3. Excess jewellery disclosed 1367.568 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me was matching with the jewellery as disclosed by the assessee and his family members, break up of which is as under :- S.No. Name of the person Amount (Rs.) 1. Shri Arvind Agrawal 8,63,685 2. Shri Subhash Agrawal 19,73,451 28,37,136 4. The Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order added the amount of jewellery as seized during the course of search as income of the assessee and his brother even when the quantity of the gold jewellery as disclosed by the assessee was higher than what was actually ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aim. It was explained by the appellant that gold jewellery of 13032.452 gms. was found during the course of search stands explained as the appellant was in possession of gold jewellery of weighing to 14,400.020 gms. as per W. T. return and VDIS disclosure certificate. The appellant s AR try to explain the difference of Diamond jewellery which was found in excess of 84.59 Cts. through the difference of gold found in excess through declaration submitted as above by appellant in declared jewellery and the actual gold jewellery found during the course of search operation. But, I am not in agreement with the appellant s this proposition, because the appellant could not adduce any evidence in support of such assertion. However, to this extent app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llery he may modify the same accordingly in the proportion as done by him in the assessment order. Thus, the appellant s this ground of appeal is partly allowed. 6. Addition made in the hands of Subhash Agrawal in respect of cash seized during course of search was deleted by the ld.CIT(A) after having the following observations :- 5.3 I have considered the Assessing Officer s order as well as the appellant s submission. Having considered both, I find that the appellant has challenged the addition of ₹ 2,58,041/- made on account of alleged investment in excess cash as found and seized at the time of search. The Assessing Officer on the basis of seizure made at the time of search reached to the conclusion that cash as seized dur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent are before us. 8. We have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the orders of the authorities below as well as statement of assessee recorded during course of search u/s 132(4A). We found that during course of search statement of assessee was recorded on 16.2.2009 u/s 132(4) and in reply to question no.4 he has clarified the reason for difference in the description of the jewellery as found vis- -vis description of jewellery as disclosed in the wealth tax return and VDIS. There was no dispute about the jewellery as disclosed by the assessee and his family members in their wealth returns and VDIS declaration. The value of such gold jewellery, which was declared by the assessee was excess by ₹ 14,00,923/- as agai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the wealth tax return and VDIS disclosure filed much prior to the date of search, was much more than the total value of jewellery found during the course of search.. I.T.A.T., Jodhpur Bench in the case of Arjundas Kalwani, 102 TTJ 977, held that simply because the items of the ornaments do not tally with the items shown in the inventory prepared at the time of search and the assessee could not lead evidence of conversion or remaking of jewellery, it cannot be said that jewellery to this extent was unexplained. I.T.A.T., Jaipur Bench in the case of Rakesh R. Purohit, 14 DTR 414, observed that jewellery disclosed by the assessee in past cannot be lost site in view of the non-availability of item-wise tally. 9. Keeping in view total amo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
