IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T(SS).A. No.258/Ind/2019 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Smt. Reena Upadhyay D55-56, Akriti Garden, Nehru Nagar, Bhopal (M.P.) Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-1, Bhopal PAN No.AAYPU8131C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Advocate with Shri Gagan Tiwari, Adv. Respondent by : None Date of Hearing 22.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement 28.09.2022 O R D E R PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 03.09.2019 passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 3, Bhopal arising out of the order dated 28.01.2015 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-1, Bhopal under section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2013-14. IT(SS)A No.258/Ind/2019 (Smt. Reena Upadhyay vs. DCIT) Asst.Year.– 2013-14 - 2 - 2. In the instant appeal, the assessee has challenged the addition of Rs.9,52,624/- in respect of jewellery found during course of search. 3. We have heard the Learned counsel appearing for the assessee. The Ld.DR sought for adjournment today. We have already heard the Ld.DR on 13.09.2022. However, keeping in view of physical Bench after more than 2 years, we decline to allow such adjournment as prayed for. 4. It appears from the record that the Ld. AO has made addition of Rs.29,17,170/- in respect of gold found of 971.130 grams and only 580.010 gram was seized during search. On the contrary, the Ld. CIT(A) granted relief to the assessee of 500 gram on her count and 100 gram on account of her husband. In appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) granted relief partly. Learned counsel appearing for the assessee drew our attention to this particular fact that the assessee’s husband was a rich person and her husband purchased gold in earlier years which has not been taken into consideration in its proper perspective by the authorities below. The said purchase was made through Axis Bank. The relevant document in this aspect has been annexed and filed before us by way of a paper book Page 106 whereof reflects the Axis Bank Account of his husband substantiating such facts. Apart from that ledger account of the gold ornament of the husband has been duly submitted which is showing closing balance at Rs. 10,02,267/- as on 31.03.2011. The return of income filed by the husband of the assessee for A.Y. 2009-10 to A.Y. 2012- 13 annexed to the paper book substantiates the facts of creditworthiness of having the gold in his possession. IT(SS)A No.258/Ind/2019 (Smt. Reena Upadhyay vs. DCIT) Asst.Year.– 2013-14 - 3 - Thus, taking into consideration the entire aspects of the matter, when the assesseee has been able to substantiate her claim remaining addition confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) in not found to be sustainable. The addition is, thus, deleted. Hence, assessee’s appeal is allowed. 5. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 28/09/2022 Sd/- Sd/- (BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI) (MADHUMITA ROY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Indore; Dated 28/09/2022 S. K. Sinha, Sr. PS TRUE COPY आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयुᲦ / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयुᲦ(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Indore 6. गाडᭅ फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) ITAT, Indore