, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL G BENCH, MUMBAI , , BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K . BILLAIYA, A CCOUNTANT M EMBER / I .T.A. NO . 3067/MUM/2010 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006 - 07 SHRI ASHVIN SAMTANI, LEGAL HEIR OF KOMAL SAMTANI, 11N, SAMSHIBA, NARGIS DUTT ROAD, PALI HILL, BANDRA , MUMBAI - 400 050 / VS. THE ACIT, 19(1), MUMBAI ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AMXPS 9037Q ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY: SHRI A. KARIA / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PREMANAND J. / DATE OF HEARING : 01 . 0 6 .2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01 06.201 5 / O R D E R PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) - 30 , MUMBAI DT. 2 9 . 01 .201 0 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 6 - 0 7 . 2. THE SOLE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 44,95,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF JEWELLERY. ITA. NO. 3067/M/2010 2 3 . THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL DERIVING INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND CAPITAL GAINS. WHILE SCRUTINIZING THE RETURN OF INCOME AND GOING THROUGH THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CREDITED THE CA PITAL ACCOUNT BY A SUM OF RS. 44.9 5 LAKHS UNDER THE HEAD JEWELLERY VALUATION. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SAME. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE JEWELLERY WAS BOUGHT BY THE ASSESSEE WHEN SHE WAS RESIDING ABROAD. IT WAS FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT THE JEWELLERY WAS PURCHASED IN FOREIGN COUNTRY AS THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT A RESIDENT OF INDIA. SHE HAS NOT SHOWN TH E JEWELLERY IN THE EARLIER YEARS BALANCE SHEET. THIS BEING THE FIRST YEAR OF RESIDENT IN INDIA, THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN THE JEWELLERY IN THE BAL ANCE SHEET AND HAS ALSO FILED WEALTH TAX RETURN. THE AO WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THIS EXPLANATION AND TREATED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 44.95 LAKHS AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY. 4. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) BUT WITHOUT ANY SU CCESS. 5. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE JEWELLERY WAS PURCHASED IN LONDON IN THE YEAR 1999 ONWARDS. THE SOURCE IS DULY EXPLAINED WHICH HAS NOT BEEN PROPERLY APPRECIATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 6. PER CONTRA, THE LD. D EPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE ORDER OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 7. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES BROUGHT ON RECORD. A PERUSAL OF TH E INVOICES ON RECORD SHOWS THAT THE JEWELLER IES W ERE PURCHASED IN 1999, 2000 & 2001. WE DO NOT FIND ANY REFERENCE TO THESE PURCHASE INVOICES ITA. NO. 3067/M/2010 3 NEITHER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NOR IN THE ORDER OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY, WE SET ASIDE THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO VERIFY THE DETAILS OF THE INVOICES AND DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER GIVING REASONABLE AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. OR DER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 ST JUNE , 2015 SD/ - SD/ - ( JOGINDER SING H ) (N.K. BILLAIYA) /JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 1 ST JUNE , 2015 . . ./ RJ , SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI