9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 623X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this jewellery found from the locker no. 1984, U&I Vaults, Delhi was part of jewellery declared by the assessee in her Wealth Tax Return/VDIS disclosure and AO had already allowed the credit of the same while making additions on account of unexplained jewellery. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law, in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,51,570/- on account of unexplained foreign currency found during the search relying upon a letter of Mrs. Ritu Suri claiming ownership of the said foreign currency dated 26.10.2021, i.e. after the completion of the assessment of the assessee on 30.09.2021, ignoring the fact, that, during assessment proceedings the assessee had failed to explain the source of the said foreign currency. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on the facts and in law, in relying upon the letter dated 26.10.2021 submitted by Mrs. Ritu Suri after the assessment proceedings, wherein she had claimed unexplained foreign currency found during the search belonging to her, whereas, no such claim was made before the AO during the assessment proceedings. 3. The ld. CIT(DR) submitted that The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on the facts and in law, in deleting the addition to the extent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T(DR) supporting the assessment order submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has granted relief to the assessee by wrong appreciation of facts. He further submitted that The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law, in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,15,36,269/-ignoring the fact that this jewellery found from the locker no. 1984, U&I Vaults, Delhi was part of jewellery declared by the assessee in her Wealth Tax Return/VDIS disclosure and AO had already allowed the credit of the same while making additions on account of unexplained jewellery. The ld. CIT(DR) pointed out that the jewellery found in the said locker was unexplained but the ld. CIT(A) granted relief to the assessee by wrongly holding that the said jewellery was part of jewellery declared by the assessee in her Wealth Tax Return/VDIS disclosure while the AO had already allowed credit of the same while making additions on account of unexplained jewellery. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) submitted that the first appellate order may kindly be set aside by restoring that of the AO. 7. Replying to the above, the ld. AR supporting the first appellate order submitted that the ld. CIT(A) after considering the explanation of assessee rightly he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e findings recorded by the ld. CIT(A) while granting part relief to the assessee. Accordingly ground no. 1 & 2 of revenue are dismissed. Ground no. 3 of Revenue. 9. The ld. CIT(DR) submitted that The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law, in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,15,36,269/-ignoring the fact that this jewellery found from the locker no. 1984, U&I Vaults, Delhi was part of jewellery declared by the assessee in her Wealth Tax Return/VDIS disclosure and AO had already allowed the credit of the same while making additions on account of unexplained jewellery. He further pointed out that the ld. CIT(A) has granted relief to the assessee by relying fabricated documentary evidence and considering the irrelevant facts therefore findings of ld. first appellate authority may kindly be set aside by restoring that of the Assessing Officer. 10. Replying to the above, the ld. AR drew our attention towards submissions of assessee reproduced by the ld. CIT(A) at pages 11 & 12 of his order and submitted that the documentary evidence placed at assessee's paper book pages 99 to 105 clearly reveals that the locker was last operative on 26.06.2012 during FY 2012-13 which falls beyond the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period and therefore time- barred and no addition can be made u/s 153A. That apart the CIT(Appeals) noted that after the remand during the pendency of appellate proceedings, the affidavit relied upon by the assessee in Brij Bhushan Gupta was not adversely commented upon. This being a factual finding the Court finds no reason to interfere with the ITAT's order." 7.4.2 Commissioner of Income-tax v. K.I. Pavunny [1998] 99 Taxman 327 (Kerala) KERALA HC "The aforesaid authority squarely applies to the facts of the case at hand. When the gold articles were recovered_ from the compound of the assessee, unless cogent evidence was adduced by the assessee, it would have to be presumed that the articles belonged to him and they were owned by the assessee himself. Not only this, unless the assessee sets up a clear case and leads cogent evidence to show that the gold articles were acquired in some different assessment year, there would be a further presumption that the articles were acquired in the year in question and they represented the concealed income of the year in question itself." 7.5 In view of the above judicial decisions and the facts of the case, it is held that the jew ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Assessing Officer, submitted that The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law, in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,51,570/- on account of unexplained foreign currency found during the search relying upon a letter of Mrs. Ritu Suri claiming ownership of the said foreign currency dated 26.10.2021, i.e. after the completion of the assessment of the assessee on 30.09.2021, ignoring the fact, that, during assessment proceedings the assessee had failed to explain the source of the said foreign currency. He further submitted that The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on the facts and in law, in relying upon the letter dated 26.10.2021 submitted by Mrs. Ritu Suri after the assessment proceedings, wherein she had claimed unexplained foreign currency found during the search belonging to her, whereas, no such claim was made before the AO during the assessment proceedings. The ld. CIT(DR) vehemently contended that since the ld. CIT(A) has granted relief to the assessee without any basis therefore impugned first appellate order may kindly be set aside by restoring that of the Assessing Officer. 14. Replying to the above, the ld. AR supporting the first appellate order submitted that the impugned foreig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
