9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 780X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are factual and argumentative, hence need not be reproduced. 3. Brief facts of the case are that a search and seizure action was conducted on the Ravinder Singh Tongar Group of cases u/s 132 of the Act on 18.09.2018. During the course of search, the assessee was also covered in search operation u/s 132 of the Act and his case was centralized and accordingly assessment proceedings were started u/s 143(3) of the Act by issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. During the course of search, the Income Tax Department seized nine wrist watches from the assessee residence at E-9, Beta-1, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh. The AO started the assessment proceedings and during the assessment proceedings, the AO required the assessee to explain the ownership and source of purchase of these watches. The AO also required the assessee to explain as to why the value of nine wrist watches, as valued by Government Approved Valuer, vide his report dated 06.12.2018 at Rs. 58.70 lakhs be not assessed as undisclosed investment in view of the statement of the assessee recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act dated 18.09.2018. During the assessment proceedings, one shri Ram Das accepted the ownership of these nine wrist w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provision of section 69 of the Act will not apply because this is not unexplained investment rather it being unexplained valuable article as mentioned in the provisions of section 69A of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) noted that the assessee is an individual and does not maintain any books of accounts. According to the CIT(A), section 69 of the Act applies for unexplained investment, whereas, the wrist watches comes within the definition of valuable articles, hence covered by the provisions of section 69A of the Act and deleted the addition. Against this deletion on this facet, Revenue came in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, the ld. CIT-DR argued that provisions of section 69 and 69A are similar provisions and these two provisions applies to unexplained investment as well as unexplained money, etc. He argued that the provisions of wrist watches falls within the meaning of unexplained investment as defined in the provisions of section 69 of the Act. 6. On the other hand, the ld. Counsel for the assessee supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 7. We have heard rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that during the course of search un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... first principle of the provisions of section 69, in the present case and in the given facts and circumstances of the case, this provision could not be applied to nine wrist watches seized by the Income Tax Department from the house of the assessee during the course of search under section 132 of the Act, because it falls under section 69A of the Act. Hence, we are of the considered view that applying section 69 is without any basis and hence, the CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition and we confirm the same. 8. Going to other issue on merits on this contention of nine wrist watches, we are refraining ourselves in adjudicating the same, since we have confirmed the order of the CIT(A) in deleting this addition on this issue on jurisdiction itself. 9. Next two common issues, which is practically one issue, is as regards to the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition of unexplained jewellery found during the course of search from the premises of the assessee u/s 69 of the Act amounting to Rs. 2,37,01,947/-. For this, the Revenue has raised ground no.6 to 8, which are factual and argumentative, hence need not be reproduced. 10. Brief facts of the case are that during the cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ight and accordingly the value declared was at Rs. 96,15,563/-. On this facet, the assessee also claimed by filing reconciliation out of Rs. 96.15 lacks declared in erstwhile search, the value of all jewellery items is appreciated to Rs. 1,07,22,844/- due to increase in gold and valuation rates between 2013 and 2018. Therefore, it was claimed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer that value of jewellery to the extent of Rs. 1,07,22,844/- stands explained. 11. As regards to this jewellery explained of Rs. 1,07,22,844/-, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) noted in his appellate order, at page-64 in paras 9.6 and 9.7 that the Assessing Officer treated jewellery to the extent of Rs. 96,15,563/- as explained and has not made any addition. The assessee, before the CIT(A) contended that actually, the Assessing Officer should have taken the weight of jewellery found during the course of search conducted in year 2012. The CIT(A) found the assessee's contention is correct and accordingly by accepting the reconciliation, allowed the deduction to the assessee to the extent of Rs. 1,07,22,844/-. The CIT(A) accepted this contention by paras 9.6 and 9.7 as unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... support the claim of the assessee, she has filed affidavits of few of the family members namely Shri Brahm Prakash S/o Shri Ram Dass, Kusum Devi W/o Shri Devendra Singh, Shri Amnesh Kumar S/o Shri Ram Dass, Shri Om Prakash and Shri Vivek Kumar few to be named. The CIT(A) has accepted the affidavits and also accepted the claim of the ownership of the assessee. Aggrieved Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 14. Before us, the Ld. CIT-DR only made arguments that there is no evidence filed by the alleged claimant of ownership of the jewellery and even the CIT(A) has not examined these parties before deleting the addition. The Ld. CIT-DR made submission that unless and until the affidavits to show the ownership is not established, the CIT(A) should have restored the matter back to the file of the AO instead deleting the addition. 15. On the other hand, the ld. Counsel for the assessee supported the order of the CIT(A). The ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that once affidavits are accepted and not rejected or no cross examination is taken up by the AO, the ownership stands proved according to him. 16. We have heard both the sides on this issue and gone through the facts and c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
