TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 1727X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jewellery was purchased with the imprest money of the company available with the assessee -HELD THAT:- Wealth Tax Return of Surpreet Suri and Kinty Suri[wife] shown a total amount of 2481.672 gms whereas the total jewellery found and recorded as per the panchanama pertaining to Surpreet Suri and Kinty Suri was 3622.15 gms. Since, the assessee has got two sons and no provision has been given by the revenue regarding the jewellery possessed by them in view of the Instruction No. 1916 dated 11.05.1994 in para (ii) and (iii), keeping in view the return income of the assessee which is 4.5 crores for the assessment year 2013-14, we hereby consider it fair to allow 200 gms of jewellery per person and thus, an amount of 740 gms can be treated as unexplained excess jewellery in the hands of the assessee against 2528 gms determined by the revenue. This was due to the fact that the amount of jewellery of 1388 gms belonging to Narender Kaur Suri and Preet Pal Suri parents of the assessee, found at the residence of the assessee were treated in the hands of the assessee wrongly, even though the panchnama reveals clearly that the jewellery belongs to the parents of the assessee. The appeal of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a right tenant in spite of the having best intention to let out the same. Hence, the ALV of the property was taken as Nil. The assessee has quoted the following case laws in support of his arguments: Premsudha Exports P. Ltd. Vs ACIT 110 ITD 158 (ITAT Mumbai) Smt. Indu Chandra Vs DCIT in ITA No. 96/Lkw/2011 Smt. Shankuntala Devi Vs DCIT in ITA No. 1524/Bang/2010 ACIT Vs Dr. Prabha Sanghi 139 ITD 504 (ITAT Delhi) 5. He argued that the ld. CIT (A) has not been able to distinguish these judgments and has merely denied the vacancy allowance as available u/s 23(1)(c) of the Act on the ground that the same is only available if the property is let out at least once. No condition of such nature as alleged by the ld. CIT (A) is specified in Section 23(1)(c) of the Act for allowing vacancy allowance as also clarified by Mumbai ITAT in Premsudha Export s case as cited above. 6. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record. Section 23(1)(c) of the Act pertaining to determination of annual value or determined vacancy allowance reads as under: Section 23(1)(c) (c) where the property or any part of the property is let and was vacant during the whole or any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n by the company. He submitted that the bills of Swaran Shree Jewels wherein the jewellery has been purchased in cash and argued that the jewellery purchased by the assessee with the money of the company should be considered and the jewellery found be treated as explained. 13. The ld. DR argued that the explanation of the ld. AR pertaining to the remaining jewellery cannot be accepted and filed his written arguments which are as under: 1. During the course of search, jewellery weighing 5009.686 gms belonging to the assessee and his wife was found valued at Rs. 4,16,81,384. Out of this jewellery weighing 394.860 gms was reflected in their wealth tax returns. Thus, jewellery weighing 2528.014 valued at Rs. 2,10,33,076 remained explained. 2. The assessee claimed that jewellery weighing 1645.548 gms was purchased from 1.04.2013 to 29.10.2013. Some bills were produced but they did not contain name of the assessee. Moreover, mode of payment was cash, source of which the assessee could not explain. Some bills for purchase of jewellery were found during search and credit of these bills has been allowed to the assessee. The bills for jewellery weighing 1645.548 gms were not found during cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is cash was stated to be imprest received from the companies which is not possible because company will not provide imprest for purchasing personal affects. 5.9 Regarding credit of jewellery as per CBDT's instructions no. 1916 dated 11.01.1994, it is noted that once appellant and his wife filed wealth tax returns and full credit of jewellery shown in these (wealth tax) returns were allowed there is no occasion 1Or allowing any further benefit as per the said CRDT Instructions. 5.10 In view of the above discussion, this ground (no. 3) of appeal is dismissed and consequently the addition (of Rs.2,37,08,076/-) is confirmed. 5. In view of above facts, assessee has failed to discharge the onus of proving the source of investment in above jewellery. In the above case, it is humbly submitted that the following decisions may kindly be considered with regard to addition made u/s 69 69A of I.T. Act: 1. R. Mallika Vs CIT [2017] 79 taxmann.com 117 (SC) (Copy Enclosed) where Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed SLP against Madras High Court's ruling that where assessee had not discharged burden as regards source from which investment had been made, investment in property was an unexplain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with gold jewellery actually found in assessee's possession. 6. Vijay Kumar Saraf Vs ITAT [1996] 85 Taxman 465 (Madhya Pradesh)/[1997] 226 ITR 860 (Madhya Pradesh) (Copy Enclosed) Certain jewellery and ornaments seized during raid on business premises of assessee were claimed to be assets of ancestral business of assessee's father. Assessee's aforesaid plea having not been pressed before tax authorities nor substantiated by any material evidence. Hon ble MP High Court held that Tribunal had rightly upheld assessment by treating value of seized assets as also purchase of scooter as unexplained investments of assessee within meaning of section 69. 7. Karun Dutt Singh Vs CIT [2017] 85 taxmann.com 177 (Kerala) (Copy Enclosed) where Hon'ble Kerala High Court held that where AO made addition to assessee's income in respect of gold ornaments recovered from him after rejecting his explanation that it belonged to his employer company, in view of fact that director of employer company in his statement recorded under sec. 131 denied to have given ornaments to assessee for sale or as samples, impugned addition was to be confirmed. 14. Heard the arguments of both the parties ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
