9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (4) TMI 763X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aring total income at ₹ 3,17,200/-. However, the assessment was completed at an income of ₹ 10,86,070/- including the addition of unexplained cash credit ₹ 3,88,500/- and unexplained investment in diamond jewellery ₹ 3,80,374/-, vide order dated 13.12.2006 passed under section 143(3) read with section 153B(b) of the Act. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. Ground No.1 is against the validity of the order passed by the AO and Ground No.2 is the general ground. 5. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee did not press the above grounds which was not objected to by the Ld.DR. 6. That being so and in the absence of any other supporting materials placed on record by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, the Ground Nos.1 and 2 taken by the assessee are, therefore, rejected being not pressed. 7. Ground No.3 is against the sustenance of addition of unexplained cash ₹ 3,88,500/-. 8. Brief facts of the above issue are that during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that during the course of search, at the residence of ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red the submissions of the rival parties and perused the material available on record. We find that there is no dispute that in the statement recorded at the time of search, the AO specifically asked about the cash of ₹ 3,88,500/- vide question No.8 as under : "Q.No.8 : Cash of ₹ 3,88,500/- was found from your bedroom. Do you confirm that the same belongs to you only. Ans : It is combined cash of family" We further find that during the course of assessment proceedings the assessee vide letter dated 13.10.2006 has stated as under : "Regarding seizure of ₹ 5,00,000/- I want to state that during the course of search in my statement I stated that this cash belongs to us and our family members. All our family members are income tax payer since last so many years. In every case we are filling balance sheet and paying income tax regularly. I have to married sons and we all three are also filing return in HUF capacity. Whatever cash was found it was accounted and explained and it was … Details of cash balances S. No. Date Name cash Source Seized Returned 1 8.9.2004 Bharat Jethani (M/s Bell Computers) 4,44,061 As per books 4,44,061 - 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h. Therefore, the AO did not accept the assessee's explanation that the diamond jewellery was disclosed in VDIS. The AO after taking into account the age of the assessee, past savings, business etc. considered that the jewellery of the value of ₹ 40,000/- as explained and treated the balance investment in diamond jewellery ₹ 3,80,374/- (420374-40000) as unexplained investment out of undisclosed source and added the same to the total income of the assessee. Regarding gold jewellery, the AO treated the same as explained and hence he did not make any addition. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) while observing that in the absence of any convincing evidence, confirmed the addition made by the AO. 14. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee placed on record the following chart: JETHANI FAMILY DIAMOND JHEWELLERY CHART S. No. Name of the person to whom diamond jewellery belongs Qty.in GMS/ Carats Value Rs. Source of Acquisition Remarks Page No. as per paper book 1 Nirmal Hemraj Jethani 339.800 6,53,340 218.800- Declared in VDIS 127.000- Declared in Wealth Tax Return 339.800 -Total Diamond Jewellery found and valued 190.500 gms/crt at ₹ 4,20,374/- A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellery inasmuch as it is not the case of the Revenue that the jewellery which was disclosed by the assessee's wife under VDIS and in the return of wealth tax was over and above found at the time of search. Since no other jewellery was found during the course of search and keeping in view that the AO has accepted the gold jewellery in toto and diamond jewellery valued at ₹ 40,000/- we are of the view that the addition of the remaining amount of diamond jewellery of ₹ 3,80,374/- is not sustainable and accordingly the same is deleted. The ground taken by the assessee is, therefore, allowed. 17. Ground No.5 is against the levy of interest u/s 234A,234B and 234C. 18. After hearing rival parties and perusing the material available on record and in the absence of any plea, we direct the AO to allow consequential relief in respect of levy of interest charged u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. The ground taken by the assessee is, therefore, partly allowed. ITA No.4631/Mum/2008 (by Mr.Bharat Hemraj Jethani) 19. Ground No.1 is against the validity of the order passed by the AO and Ground No.2 is the general ground. 20. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to allow consequential relief in respect of levy of interest charged u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. The ground taken by the assessee is, therefore, partly allowed. ITA No.4632/Mum/2008 (By.Mrs.Darshna K.Jethani) 28. Ground No.1 is against the validity of the order passed b by the AO and Ground No.2 is the general ground. 29. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee did not press the above grounds which was not objected to by the Ld.DR. 30. That being so and in the absence of any other supporting materials placed on record by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, the Ground Nos.1 and 2 taken by the assessee are, therefore, rejected being not pressed. 31. Ground No.3 is against the sustenance of addition of diamond and Gold jewellery of ₹ 5,61,000/-. 32. Brief facts of the above issue are that the AO observed that the diamond jewellery of ₹ 4,38,377/- was found. The assessee has no satisfactory explanation about the nature and source of acquisition of the diamond jewellery. While explaining the source of diamond/gold jewellery, Shri Hemraj explained that part of the jewellery found is by way of will of late Smt. Lachmi Ukarmal Mangtani. The AO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arch as it was lying with the executors of the will. It was, therefore, submitted that the jewellery found at the time of search be treated as explained. However, the AO merely on the ground that neither the will is registered nor it is notarised, the same was not found at the time of search and nothing was stated in the statement recorded u/s 132(4) rejected the plea of the assessee that it is after thought. Since the assessee has filed the copy of the will with an explanation that the same was lying with the executors of the will and the assessee was ready to produce one of the executors i.e. Dr.Murli M. Ratnani, therefore, we are of the view that the AO was not justified in rejecting the valid document of 'Will' filed by the assessee without recording any statement of Dr.Murli M.Ratnani. In this view of the matter and keeping in view that the AO has accepted part of the jewellery as explained and no contrary material has been placed on record by the Revenue to show that the part of the explanation given by the assessee was found to be false and untrue, we are of the view that the addition made by the AO and sustained by the Ld.CIT(A) is not sustainable and accordingly the same i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
