TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 536X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his belief that the assessee was under an obligation to explain the source and occasion of jewellery purchased and received by these nine parties. Bench is of considered opinion that learned CIT(Appeals) has taken a more prudent approach by observing that AO has not questioned the sale transactions. As such he has merely added the LTCG amount earned by respective parties on the jewellery sold. It is also coming up that these parties in fact had transactions earlier and they were old depositors of the assessee who had received further deposits during the previous year. CIT(Appeals) has also made a valid observation that there was no legal mandate for them to furnish wealth-tax returns. For the purpose of Section 68 of the Act, the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lders. Inquiry was also made to provide wealth-tax returns of these parties. Based on the submissions, the learned AO made following conclusions: (a) All the transactions were made in the month of March 2013. (b) All parties sold their old jewellery on same period of time to a single jeweler and received payment through serial numbered cheques. (c) In all these parties, assessee filed Capital Account and balance sheet for the year. When difference was found in capital increase and income earned during the year, then only show cause was issued. Assessee filed wrong facts in the beginning of the proceedings, latter on assessee filed that difference was long term capital gain. (d) All the parties are share holder or fami ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,50,852/- was made. 4. In the appeal learned First Appellate Authority has deleted the addition to the extent of Rs. 3,48,00,852/- and sustained an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- while allowing appeal partly. 5. The Revenue is in appeal raising following grounds: 1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and fact in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,48,00,852/- out of the additions of Rs. 3,50,50,850/- made by the A.O. u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 on a/c of unexplained loan/advances, ignoring detailed discrepancies and shortcomings pointed out by the A.O. in the assessee's explanation as well as in respect of creditworthiness of the depositors and genuineness of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It was specifically submitted that learned AO has fallen in making factual error by observing gift of Rs. 13,01,000/- of Smt. Nitasha Singhal while evidence was with regard to the amounts appearing from her books of account. Similarly, in regard to Nishit Singhal it was submitted that learned AO has fallen in error in generalizing the source to sale of jewellery alone. While in case of Nishit Singhal there was specific gifts supported with affidavit. 9. The Bench has given thoughtful consideration to the material on record and what transpires is that certainly as regard to sale of jewellery being a source of the nine lenders except Mrs. Nitasha Singhal, it comes up that the jewellery were sold to only one jeweler at Meerut. However, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f account as reproduced at page nos. 23 24 of the order of learned CIT(Appeals) establish that the credit in ledger account were on account of sale of jewellery, rent received, journal entry and amount received by cheques to the extent of Rs. 4,95,000/-. Learned CIT(Appeals) has taken into account cash deposit of Rs. 2,50,000/- in her bank account on 29.12.2012, which was given as a loan on the same date to the assessee and restricted the addition to Rs. 2,50,000/- instead of Rs. 13,01,000/-. 11. Similarly, in regard to Nishit Singhal, learned CIT(Appeals) has taken into consideration the fact that gift of Rs. 20,00,000/- were by way of gift received from maternal grandparents. The same were by way of gift cheques. He was also in recei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
