TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 145X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ities on this issue and delete the addition on this issue - Appeal of assessee allowed. - ITA No.53/Ind/2021, 54/Ind/2021, 55/Ind/2021 (Assessment Year:2018-19) - - - Dated:- 7-2-2022 - SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessees by Shri V.N.Dubey Ibrahim Kannodwala, Advocates Revenue by Shri P.K. Mitra, CIT-DR ORDER PER BENCH The above captioned appeals filed at the instance of the Assessees and Revenue and cross objection by assessee for Assessment Year 2018-19 are directed against the separate orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) (in short Ld.CIT]-3, Bhopal all dated 18.01.2021 which are arising out of the orders u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee in respect of alleged unexplained Jewellery (i.e. 1/3rd of the Jewellery of ₹ 1,13,80,825/- seized during course of search). The Assessing Officer made addition on the ground that the items specified in the bills do not exactly match with the item found during the course of search. However, the assessee submitted that over the period of time, items of gold jewellery keep on changing because of remaking and therefore, gross weight of gold jewellery found in course of search should be taken as explained to the extent of gross weight of gold jewellery as per bills/invoices or valuation report already accepted when filed by the assessee. The explanation in respect of jewellery found vis- -vis the jewellery of which source was filed, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... source of the jewellery. 5. We have considered rival contentions and gone through the material available on record. We find that the learned CIT(A) decide the issue as under: 4.5 Ground No. 5 6 for AY 2018-19: -Through these grounds of appeal, the appellant has challenged the addition of ₹ 37,93,608/- on account of unexplained jewellery. During the course of search jewellery amounting to ₹ 2,63,83,523/- was found from the premises and bank locker of the appellant out of which jewellery amounting to ₹ 1,13,80,825/- was seized. The AO during the course of assessment proceedings required the assessee to explain the source of acquisition of jewellery. The AO after considering reply of the assessee did not find the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts having the net weight of the gold of 5305.75 gms, diamond of 349.23 carats other valuable stones of 110 carats and silver utensils/articles aggregating to 12.906 kgs found during course of search are summarized as under: SN. Particulars Weight Weight Remark (Found) (Explained) 1 Gold 5305.75 GM 5136.30 GM Minor difference on account of weight/other Error 2 Diamonds 349.23 Carats 351.06 Carats ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve. 7. Having gone through the submissions and material available on record, we find that before the Revenue Authorities the assessee has explained and substantiated the above details of the jewellery with relevant document/evidences but the Revenue Authorities did not appreciate the explanation about the source of acquisition of jewellery merely on the ground that the items specified in the bills do not exactly match with the item found during the course of search. But, we are of the view that the Revenue Authorities failed to appreciate the fact that over the period of time, items of gold jewellery keep on changing because of remaking and therefore, gross weight of gold jewellery found in course of search should be taken as explained t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed lot of significance for ladies which is a status symbol and they buy it or convert the jewellery as per the prevailing fashion. There has no gainsaying that fashion keeps on changing and, accordingly, the jewellery is reShri modeled from time to time according to the prevailing fashion and under the facts and circumstances of the case, exactly matching of the items of jewellery found at the time of search is putting an onerous task on assessee to prove something impossible, and assessee cannot be as bed to prove something which is beyond its control. Further, it is well settled in a plethora of judgments of various Courts that jewelleries found during the course of search should be seized only after compliance of the CBDT Instruction No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
