TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 551X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e same and in absence thereof, the action, if any as per law can be taken in his hands. In light of the same, we find that there is no basis for making the addition in hands of the assessee and the same is directed to be deleted. Addition u/s. 115BBE - Unexplained investment in the jewellery - jewellery was found from the residence owned by Sh. Krishan Lai Sachdeva, head of the family and part of the jewellery was found from the locker in the name of Sh. Roop Sachdeva - HELD THAT:- Case of the Revenue is that the jewellery has been found from the locker of the assessee and the onus is therefore on the assessee to explain the source of investment in the jewellery so found and seized. As we have seen in A.Y 2013-14 wherein similar addition was made in hands of the assessee basis certain bills found in the same locker no. 144 no. which was in the name of Sh. Roop Sachdeva and not in the name of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) has returned a finding that the bill amounting to Rs. 1,52,390/- have been found seized from the locker no. 144, in the name of Sh. Roop Sachdeva and cognizance of the same should have been taken in his hands and addition, if any, was required to be made in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 683/Mum/2016 wherein, on similar facts circumstances, the proceedings u/s. 153A have been quashed. 4. Notwithstanding the above said grounds of appeal, the Ld. CIT(A)-5, Ludhiana has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,94,655/- on account of purchase of jewellery, which is against the factual facts circumstances of the case and further, the said jewellery was not found from the locker of the assessee and, as such, the addition is otherwise not sustainable. 5. That the appellant craves leave to add or to amend any of the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed-off. 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee has filed her original return of income on 11/09/2013 declaring total income of Rs. 14,52,280/-. Subsequently search and seizure operation were conducted in the case of M/s. Roop Square Group of Companies on 01/11/2017 and the notice under section 153A was issued to the assessee and in response, the assessee filed her return of income declaring total income of Rs. 14,52,280/-. Thereafter, notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and the assessee was also issued a show cause to explain the source of investm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... given by the AO that the warrant of authorization was issued for M/s. Saakshat in which the assessee was not a partner and in paragraph 3 of the report, it has wrongly been mentioned that the assessee is a partner in this firm. It was submitted that the assessee was partner only in two assessment years i.e 2014-15 2015-16 respectively. Further the AO has relied upon warrant of authorization, which was never shown to the assessee and even no Panchnama has been drawn in the name of the assessee. It was submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly mentioned that no return was filed by the assessee in response to the notice under section 153A and dismissed this ground of appeal on the basis of warrant of authorization, a copy thereof was not given to the assessee and even no Panchnama has been drawn. It was accordingly submitted that the language of Section 153A is very clear that where a search is initiated under section 132 and in the present case no search has been initiated, the proceedings under section 153A are void-ab-initio. 5.4. Regarding additional ground of appeal, it was submitted that the Ld. Addl. CIT has mechanically given the approval under section 153D, without any a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 'ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s. Mdlr Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT Ors [2013] 40 taxmann.com 365. Further, our reference was drawn to the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) which read as under: The facts of the case, basis of addition made by the AO and the arguments of the AR during the course of appellate proceedings have been considered. The AR has submitted that the addition has been made on the basis of two bills for purchase of gold, one in the name of the assessee and other in the name of Smt. Swarna Rani, mother-in-law of the assessee. The AR has argued that the bills was not found in the possession of the assessee but found from the locker of Sh. Roop Sachdeva and as such no addition is liable to be made in the hands of the assessee. It is further submitted that no addition has been made in the hands of Smt. Swarna Rani or in the hands of the Sh. Roop Sachdeva in respect of investment in jewellery by way of these bills. It was further argued that the assessee has submitted that the jewellery in the name of the assessee is as per the regular source which has not been considered by the AO and contended that no addition is called for in the case of the assessee. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 61. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and pursued the material available on record. The ld. CIT(A) has returned a finding that the bill amounting to Rs. 1,52,390/- have been found seized from the locker no. 144, in the name of Sh. Roop Sachdeva and cognizance of the same should have been taken in his hands and addition, if any, was required to be made in the case of Sh. Roop Sachdeva and the addition of Rs. 1,52,390/- made by the AO was not found sustainable and was directed to be deleted. It is also an admitted fact that the bill amounting to Rs. 194,655/- has also been found seized from the same locker no. 144, in the name of Sh. Roop Sachdeva and on the same analogy, it is for Shri Roop Sachdeva to explain the source of purchase of such jewellery and in absence of any satisfactory explanation, the addition, if any is required to be made in the hands of Shri Roop Sachdeva and not in the hands of the assessee. Merely because the name of the assessee is mentioned on the said bill, the same doesn't automatically result in discharge of burden on part of Shri Roop Sachdeva as the bill has been found and seized from the locker in name of Shri Roop Sachdeva and it is q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the findings of the lower authorities and our reference was drawn to the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) which read as under: The facts of the case, basis of addition made by the AO and the arguments of the AR during the course of appellate proceedings have been considered. The AR has submitted that there was search on the premises of Sh. Krishan lal Sachdeva, on 04.10.2007 and jewellery weighing 2010 grams was found, out of which 165 grams jewellery was seized which was released later on. It is further mentioned that net weight of the jewellery found from the locker and residence in the name of Sh. Roop Sachdeva was only to the tune of 1689 grams plus certain diamond jewellery from the locker and residence to the tune of Rs. 8,23,000/-. The AR has argued that the assessee has no locker in her name and no addition has been made in the hands of Sh. Krishan Lal Sachdeva, Smt. Swarna Rani or Sh. Roop Sachdeva and argued that the whole basis of making the addition in the hands of the assessee is improper. The other contention of the AR is that considering the members of the family as per Board Circular which prescribes minimum amount of Istridhan, the benefit allowable is of 1800 gra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entions and pursued the material available on record. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was issued a show-cause and contents thereof read as under: During the course of search of your locker no. 144 with Bank of India, Ludhiana, gold/diamond jewellery and silver items were found. After engaging Govt. approved valuer, these items were evaluated at Rs. 17,33,200/-. You are hereby required to explain the source of same, you are further show caused as to why the same should not be added back as unexplained. 13. Thereafter, the AO has gone ahead and has made an addition of Rs. 11,92,000/- holding that the assessee has failed to explain the source of investment in the jewellery. We therefore find that the case of the Revenue is that the jewellery has been found from the locker of the assessee and the onus is therefore on the assessee to explain the source of investment in the jewellery so found and seized. As we have seen in A.Y 2013-14 wherein similar addition was made in hands of the assessee basis certain bills found in the same locker no. 144 no. which was in the name of Sh. Roop Sachdeva and not in the name of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) has return ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the case pertains to M/s. Roop Square Group of Companies where search and seizure operation u/s. 132 was conducted on 01.11.2017. During the search of locker bearing no. 587 with HDFC Bank, jewellery worth Rs. 26.80 lacs was found, besides jewellery worth of Rs. 23.40 lacs was found at the residence. The assessee was show-caused why the jewellery found should not be treated as unexplained. In Reply, the assessee stated that the jewellery worth Rs. 23.40 lacs found at the residence belongs to the assessee and her family members which was purchased by them from time to time. It was also stated that the jewellery weighing 1341 grams was found during last search for which the assessment has already been done. The AO observed that benefit of jewellery already assessed is being given, however as per the AO, the assessee was not able to justify the acquisition of the jewellery amounting to Rs. 6,38,400/- which was seized from the locker. The AO held that an amount of Rs. 6,38,400/- is unexplained investment in jewellery because the assessee has failed to substantiate the source of acquisition and accordingly made the addition u/s. 69, on account of unexplained investment in jewellery, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
