9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 252X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were heard together and are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. We will first take up ITA No.1511/Del/2020 assessee's appeal. 4. The grievance of the assessee read as under :- 1 The on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 3,31,778/- u/s 69B on account of jewellery found during the course of search ignoring the explanation and evidence and is against the facts of the case and hence liable to be deleted 2 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 37,50,000/- u/s 69B on account of painting found during the course of search, the source of which have been explained duri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The AO made addition of Rs.26435029/- u/s.69B r.w.s. 115BE of the Act. The addition was challenged before the CIT(A) and once again a detailed reconciliation statement was furnished explaining the jewellery shown in the Wealth Tax Return and found at the time of search. 7. After considering the facts and the submissions the CIT(A) was satisfied with the reconciliation but was of the opinion that the colour stone/ pearls have not been properly reconciled and sustained the addition to the extent of Rs.331778/-thereby giving relief of Rs.26103251/-. Against this finding of the CIT(A) both the assessee and the revenue are in appeal before us. 8. The Counsel for the assessee reiterated what has been stated before the lower authorities. 9. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of Ashok Chaddha Vs. ITO 14 taxman.com 57 wherein Hon'ble High Court has highlighted realities of life by holding as under :- (i) "Judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Ashok Chaddha (supra) wherein the Hon'ble High Court has accepted the jewellery of 906.60 grams in the case of married lady even without documentary evidence as the denying the explanation would tantamount to overlooking the realities of life by holding as under:- "As far as addition qua jewellery is concerned, during the course of search, jewellery weighing grams of the value amounting to Rs. 6,93,582 was found. The appellant's explanation was that he was married about 25 years back and the jewe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essing Officer as well as other authorities was that as the department had conducted a search of all the financial dealings which were within his knowledge and no paper or document was found to indicate that this jewellery belonged to the appellant and that it was undisclosed income of the assessment year 2006-07. In a search operation, no scope is left with the tax department to make addition on subjective guess work, conjectures and surmises. It was also argued that jewellery is "streedhan" of the assessee's wife, evidenced in the form of declaration which was finished by mother-in-law of the assessee stating that she had given the jewellery in question to her daughter. She argued that it is a normal custom for a woman to receive jewe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ." 15. In the light of the aforementioned judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, the withdrawals made month after month cannot be brushed aside lightly and which are evident from 202 to 204 of the paper book and it can be seen that the withdrawals are enormous and needless to mention the returned income of the assessee is Rs.14.73 crores. The withdrawals and the returned income speak volumes about the richness of the family. 16. Considering all these facts in totality and in particular the wealth tax returns viz-a-viz the jewellery found. We do not find any merit in the impugned addition made by the AO we accordingly direct the AO to delete the entire addition of Rs.26435029/- thereby allowing ground No.1 of assessee's appeal and dismi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he orders of the authorities below. The difference in the valuation can be seen from the chart exhibited here in above. It can be seen that the assessee has claimed to have purchased the paintings in the year 2004, 2012 and 2017 whereas the departmental valuation officer has not mentioned the year of purchase in their respective valuation report. We find that the DVO has also not pointed out any defect in the valuation report filed by the assessee nor there is any evidence on record to show that the AO has examined the valuation of the assessee. It can be seen from the two DVO's report that both the valuer of the department have valued the painting differently. This show that the opinion of the experts can also differ on the same set of fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
