Smt. Vimal Sood L/H Sh. Naveen Sood, New Delhi V. ACIT, Faridabad

ITA 4281/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4026 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 3
• Next Hearing Date: 21-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 06-08-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Search and seizure

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: D NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, HONBLE PRESIDEN T & SHRI K.N. CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.-4281/DEL/2014 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) VIMAL SOOD L/H SH. NAVEEN SOOD RRA TAXINDIA, D-28, SOUTH EXTENSION, PART-1, NEW DELHI. AKJPS6584N VS ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 FARIDABAD ASSESSEE BY SH. SOMIL AGRAWAL, ADV. REVENUE BY SH. ARUN KUMAR YADAV, SR. DR ORDER PER SHRI K.N. CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGING THE O RDER DATED 06.06.2014 IN APPEAL NO. 21/55/IT/CIT(A)-I/LDH/2008 -09 PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) (CENTRAL), GURGAON (HEREINAFTER FOR SHORT CALLED AS THE LD. CIT (A)) ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS. 52,500/- BEING 1/3 RD OF THE TOTAL ADDITION MADE BY LD. AO OF RS. 1,57,500/- ALLEGEDLY ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED JEWELLERY. 2. THAT IN ANY CASE AND IN ANY VIEW OF THE MATTER, ACTION OF LD. CIT (A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 52,500/- IS BAD IN L AW AND AGAINST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. DATE OF HEARING 21.09.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 09.10.2017 2 ITA NO. 4281/DEL/2014 3. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE, LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACT ION OF LD. AO IN PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER WITHOUT GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUN ITY OF BEING HEARD. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE LEAVE TO ADD, ALTE R OR AMEND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT ANY STAGE AND ALL THE GROUNDS ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT IN THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS THAT WERE CONDUCTED IN THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE A SSESSEE, JEWELLERY WORTH RS. 4,40,294/- WAS FOUND IN THE BEDROOM OF TH E ASSESSEE AND JEWELLERY WORTH RS. 3,46,683/- WAS FOUND FROM THE L OCKER WITH PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, FARIDABAD. AS PER THE VALUATION MAD E BY THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUER THE WEIGHT OF THE JEWELLERY WAS 650 GMS. HA VING REGARD TO THE CBDT CIRCULAR WITH RESPECT TO THE LIMITS OF JEWELLE RY, THE JEWELLERY WAS LEFT WITH THE ASSESSEE. ASSESSEE EXPLAINED BEFORE THE A O THAT SHE AS AN OLD LADY OF 77 YEARS, HER HUSBAND 82 YEARS AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE STATUS AND AGE OF THE ASSESSEE THE JEWELLERY WAS WELL WITHIN T HE REASONABLE LIMITS. AO CONSIDERED THE CULTURE AND RELIGION PREVALENT IN HINDU SOCIETY, STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE AND TRADITION OF GIVING JEWELLERY A T THE TIME OF MARRGIAGE, BIRTH OF CHILD AND ON OTHER OCCASION, AND ACCEPTED 500 GMS OF JEWELLERY AS EXPLAINED AND TREATED THE REMAINING 150 GMS AS UNEX PLAINED INVESTMENT AND MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 1,57,500/- EQUIVALENT T O ITS WORTH. IN APPEAL LD. CIT (A) FURTHER CONSIDERED IT FIT TO GIVE FURTH ER CREDIT OF 100 GMS IN THE 3 ITA NO. 4281/DEL/2014 HANDS OF THE HUSBAND AND RESTRICTED THE ADDITION 25 0 GMS ONLY, WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS CHALLENGING NOW IN THIS APPEAL. 3. IT IS THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. AR THAT THE AUTHOR ITIES BELOW ERRED IN MAKING THE ADDITION AND THE LD. CIT (A) SHOULD NOT HAVE ADDED 52,500 BEING THE VALUE OF 50 GMS. PER CONTRA, LD. DR VEHE MENTLY RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD. AO RECORDED TH E FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE S IN RESPECT OF THE ACQUISITION OF JEWELLERY FOUND AT THE RESIDENCE AS WELL AS IN THE BANK LOCKER OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, HAVING REGARD TO THE CULTURE AND STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE TRADITION PREVALENT IN THE HINDU SOCIETY HE ACCEPTED JEWELLERY OF 500 GMS AS EXPLAINED AND TREA TED THE BALANCE OF 150 GMS AS AN UNEXPLAINED. IN THE SAME SET OF CIRC UMSTANCES, THE LD. CIT (A) HAD TAKEN A FURTHER LENIENT VIEW AND ACCEPT ED ANOTHER 100 GMS AS EXPLAINED IN THE HANDS OF THE HUSBAND. IT IS ONLY THE REMAINING 50 GMS THAT IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED AND BY VALUING THE S AME AT RS. 1050/- PER GM THE ADDITION WAS MADE. HAVING REGARD TO THE FAC TS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, AND ALSO THAT NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER W AS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, WE FIND IT D IFFICULT TO HOLD THAT THEY 4 ITA NO. 4281/DEL/2014 HAVE COMMITTED ANY ERROR. ABSOLUTELY THERE IS NO M ATERIAL BEFORE US TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW FROM THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LD. CIT (A). WE, THEREFORE, UPHOLD THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT (A) AN D DISMISSED THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09.10.2017 SD/- SD/- (G.D. AGRAWAL) (K.N. CHARY) PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 09.10.2017 *KAVITA ARORA COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT TRUE COPY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI 5 ITA NO. 4281/DEL/2014