TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 1337X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to whether the jewellery found during the course of search, which were not tallied with the description of jewellery given in the valuation report filed with wealth-tax return, could be made from remaking of untallied jewellery stated in the valuation report filed along with wealth-tax return or not. We, further, observe that the assessee also could not bring any material before us to show that the same was possible. In the above circumstances, in our considered view, it shall be in the interest of justice to restore this issue back to the file of the AO for deciding the issue afresh after taking into consideration the above cited decision, and actual position in the light of the discussion made above. Needless to mention that, the AO shall allow reasonable and proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee before adjudicating the issue afresh. Thus, this ground of the cross objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. - IT(SS)A No. 590/Ahd/2012 With CO No.37/Ahd/2013 - - - Dated:- 30-4-2015 - SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Revenue : Shri O.P. Vaishnav, Sr.DR For the Assessee : Shri S.N. Soparkar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - 0.040 21.300 - 25249 - - - - Mrs. Meena G. Agarwal Residence at Kaaushalya, Juhu Scheme, Mumbai - - 56 1008000 - - - - Mrs. Meena G. Agarwal Residence at Kaaushalya, Juhu Scheme, Mumbai 495.15 2530.880 - 21299940 224.49 1446.87 - 9206760 Mrs. Meena G. Agarwal Residence at Kaaushalya, Juhu Scheme, Mumbai - 3648.730 - 4004245 - - - - 5. Smt. Meena G. Agarwal is assessed to wealth-tax. She had filed her wealth tax return for the Asstt.Year 2008-09 on 31.7.2008 with ACIT, Vapi vide acknowledgement no.397. In the valuation report dated 20.8.2005, enclosed with the return of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome of the diamond jewellery. The AO observed that the assessee has raised the following pleas: i) Jewellery to the extent of ₹ 74,64,673/-has been seized erroneously as either the gross weight or carat weight or description of the jewellery mentioned in the valuation report of the departmental valuer made at the time of search tallied with the jewellery mentioned in the valuation report of the assessee enclosed with the wealth tax return; ii) Jewellery to the extent of ₹ 10,02,596/- has been remade/altered from the original jewellery which has been disclosed by the assessee in her wealth-tax return. The assessee has enclosed remaking bills along with the application; iii) There was calculation error to the extent of ₹ 77,107/-. 6. The AO, thereafter, observed that these pleas of the assessee are not acceptable for the following reasons: i) Gross weight of the jewellery ii) Carat weight of diamond/stone iii) Number of pieces of diamond/stone iv) Description of the jewellery in the departmental valuation report and assessee s valuation report. 7. It was found that there was gross variation in either or all of the above criteria. The jewel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... during] the appellate proceedings. Out of total seizure of diamond jewellery valued at ₹ 91,29,653 the Assessing Officer has accepted the explanation of the appellant to the extent of diamond jewellery valued at Rs] 10,02,596 on account of alteration and remaking. Out of balance jewellery the appellant has made disclosure of ₹ 28 lacs on account of unexplained investment in jewellery during the search which have been offered by the appellant in the return of income. For balance addition of ₹ 53,27,057, the appellant has filed reconciliation of diamond jewellery as narrated in detail above. As mentioned by the Assessing Officer on page - 3 of the assessment order that 552.95 carats of diamond was found during the search as against 965.48 carats of diamonds declared in Wealth Tax Return prior to the date of search. The addition of unexplained diamond jewellery has been made if discrepancy between assessee's valuation report and the Departmental Valuer's report prepared at the time of search was noticed on any of the four criteria adopted by the Assessing Officer. These criteria were gross weight, carat weight of diamonds, number of pieces of diamonds and des ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with one diamond and four carat weight. Description in both the valuation reports is almost the same and carat weight is almost same with the difference in gross weight. Similar minor difference in -any of the four criteria adopted by the Assessing Officer resulted in rejection of assessee's explanation and addition. From the reconciliation statements mentioned above where only minor difference is noticed by the Assessing Officer with almost same description of items, it is concluded that in minor difference in any of the criteria i.e. gross weight, carat weight, number of diamonds and description of the item should not be made the sole criteria. Minor difference in description in items may be due to nomenclature used by two valuers, minor difference in number of diamonds can be due to human error in counting very small size of diamonds and negligible difference in carat weight can be due to human error and perception of the valuer. At times, the diamond jewellery items are refixed due to loss of small diamonds and loosening of the studded diamonds and there may be minor difference in number of diamonds due to this reason also. The assessee's explanation for (discrepancy i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red with one pendant with 7.02 carats of diamond and three diamond marquises weight about 1.41 carat set in gold as per assessee's valuation report. Gross weight of one pendant was 18.800 gms whereas in assessee's valuation report it was 6.900 gms. There cannot be major difference in carat weight of one diamond only in two valuation reports for which value difference was ₹ 9 lacs. In view of the gross discrepancies in description if the item, gross weight and carat weight and description in nature of precious stone studded in the jewellery, the explanation of reconciliation statement (24), (25) and reconciliation statement (C), the appellant's explanation cannot be accepted and the diamond jewellery mentioned in these reconciliation statement are treated as different and unexplained and addition made on account of unexplained investment in these items which comes to ₹ 20,71,372 is confirmed. The appellant has in her alternate submission claimed the credit as per CBDT Circular No. 1916, dated 11th May, 1994 but the same cannot be granted as no seizure of separate gold jewellery was made and no separate addition was made for the gold ornaments. No gold ornamen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... search and the valuation report, which was filed along with wealth-tax returns. Thus, no new/fresh evidence was filed before the CIT(A). 15. The DR could not controvert the above explanation of the assessee. We, therefore, find that no new/fresh evidence was entertained by the CIT(A). Thus, this ground of appeal of the Revenue has no merit. 16. Further, in respect of other grounds of appeal of the Revenue, we find that no mistake in the findings of the CIT(A) could be pointed out by the DR. The DR could not controvert the conclusion of the CIT(A) that minor difference in description of jewellery in two valuation reports is possible, because of difference in nomenclature used by two valuers, the minor difference in number of small diamonds is possible on the facts of the case, because of human counting error or because of normal wear and tear, and nominal difference in weight could also be on account of two different perceptions of jewelers. We, thus, do not find any force in the appeal of the Revenue, and accordingly, the same is dismissed. 17. Coming to the cross-objection of the assessee, we find that the assessee relied on the above quoted decision of the Tribunal, wher ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
