SH. LALIT MAHESHWARI,KOTA V. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

MA 45/JPR/2024

AI Insights

The case revolves around a dispute concerning the addition of Rs. 1,35,659/- as unexplained income under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, related to silver jewellery found during a search operation. The assessee, Sh. Lalit Maheshwari, contested the addition, claiming that the jewellery belonged to his mother and was received on various social occasions, thus not unexplained. The ITAT initially upheld the addition but later, upon reviewing the miscellaneous application, found merit in the assessee's arguments and evidence, leading to the deletion of the addition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 23925 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 10-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANUP SINGH; LD.
• Section: 254(2); 69A

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH “B”, JAIPUR BEFORE Dr. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA No. 45/JPR/2024 (A.Y. 2017-18) (Arising out of ITA No. 769/JPR/2024) Sh. Lalit Maheshwari, Kalani & Co. Chartered Accountants, 5th Floor, Milestone Building, Ghandhinagar Turn, Tonk Road, Jaipur– 302015. PAN No.: ACFPM8337H ...... Appellant Vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Kota. ..... Respondent Applicant by : Mr. P. C. Parwal, CA, Ld. AR Respondent by : Sh. Anup Singh, Addl.CIT, Ld. DR. Date of hearing : 08/01/2025 Date of pronouncement : 10/01/2025 O R D E R PER GAGAN GOYAL, A.M: The present miscellaneous application has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in ITA No. 769/JPR/2024 dated: 05/09/2024. 1. The applicant begs to submit that the order giving rise to the present Miscellaneous Application was received on 24.09.2024. 2 2. In this appeal the assessee has challenged the addition of Rs. 1,35,659/- confirmed by CIT(A) u/s. 69A of the Act by treating the silver jewellery found in search to this extent as unexplained. 3. The assessee has explained that the value of the total gold and silver jewellery found was Rs.25,56,979/- out of which AO considered the jewellery to the extent of Rs. 10,00,000/- as unexplained. Ld. CIT(A) specifically stated in the order that AO made the addition without specifying the amount of unexplained gold jewellery and unexplained silver jewellery. Thereafter considering the gold jewellery as explained, it is observed that total silver jewellery of 6.909 kg worth Rs.2,35,659/- was found out of which it is claimed that silver jewellery of 2.026 kg belong to the mother of the assessee and remaining 4.883 kg belong to the family of the assessee. The assessee has not explained the source of acquisition of silver jewellery by the mother or by the family members and therefore he sustained addition of Rs. 1, 35,659/- out of silver jewellery. 4. Hon'ble ITAT at Para 6.1 observed that assessee has not filed specific explanation for excess jewellery of Rs. 1, 35,659/-. Out of the total value of jewellery of Rs. 25, 56,979/-, the unexplained jewellery confirmed is only Rs. 1, 35,659/- and thus the order of Ld. CIT (A) is upheld. 5. It is submitted that while giving the above finding a mistake apparent on record has crept in as much as the issue before the Hon'ble ITAT was only with reference to addition made u/s. 69A of the Act with reference to silver jewellery and not with reference to the total jewellery found. Section 69A of the Act applies when source of investment is not explained. In the present case, the silver jewellery found was only 6.909 kg and the assessee's wife Smt. Seema Maheshwari in her statement u/s. 132(4) of the Act has explained that silver articles belong to the mother/ received on her marriage and on various social occasions. Statement u/s. 132(4) of the Act has an evidentiary value. No evidence of purchase of any silver jewellery was found. The search party has also not seized any jewellery. These facts have been omitted to be considered by the Hon'ble ITAT even when specifically pointed out while upholding the order of Ld. CIT (A). 6. since the above mistake is apparent on record, it is humbly prayed to suitably modify/ recall the order passed u/s 254 of the IT Act and oblige. 2. We have gone through the order of the bench along with submissions of the assessee made before us through this Miscellaneous Application. To verify the facts of the matter we have gone through the documents and submissions filed by the assessee before the bench during the hearing of ITA No. 769/JPR/2024. 3 3. Considering the documents and submissions of the assessee discussed (supra) and the order of the bench mentioned above, we found that the only issue raised by the assessee remained un-adjudicated. In this situation, we found the application of the assessee filed u/s. 254(2) of the Act admissible. Now, as we have admitted the application and the only issue is appreciation of the contentions of the assessee along with paper book/evidence filed before the bench, application of the assessee is being adjudicated here alongwith this Miscellaneous Application. 4. It is observed that the family of the assessee consists of himself, his wife, his son and mother. The total silver jewellery under consideration weighed around 6.909 Kgs., out of which was found in the locker of Mother Smt. Pushpa Maheshwari in Corporation Bank, Kota. The rest of the jewellery weighed around 4.883 Kg. were assessed in the hands of the assessee. On this issue the assessee’s contentions before Ld. CIT (A) and bench were static and he claimed that silver articles belong to the mother received on the occasion of marriage and on various social occasions. In addition to this there is no evidence found during the search about the purchase of silver jewellery. This argument of the assessee along with the facts on record was totally ignored by the Ld. CIT (A) and the bench was also silent on the same. 5. After considering the contentions of the assessee and evidence placed before the bench during the original hearing, we found the arguments to be reasonable and legally tenable, considering the Board’s circular (discussed in the 4 order of the Ld. CIT (A)). In the result M.A. filed by the assessee is allowed with consequential impact on the original ITA No. 769/JPR/2024. Appeal of the assessee is allowed and addition of Rs. 1, 35,659/- on account of silver jewellery is deleted. 6. In the result, the application of the assessee is allowed, and earlier order is also modified to the extent mentioned (supra). Order pronounced in the open court on 10thday of January 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. S. SEETHALAKSHMI) (GAGAN GOYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Jaipur, िदनांक/Dated: 10/01/2025 Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीलाथ /The Appellant , 2. \u000eितवादी/ The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयु\u0015 CIT 4. िवभागीय \u000eितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., Sr.DR., ITAT, 5. गाड फाइल/Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Jaipur Details Date Initials Designation 1 Draft dictated on PC on 10.01.2025 Sr.PS/PS 2 Draft Placed before author 10.01.2025 Sr.PS/PS 3 Draft proposed & placed before the Second Member JM/AM 4 Draft discussed/approved by Second Member JM/AM 5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS Sr.PS/PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS/PS 7. File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS/PS 8 Date on which the file goes to the Head clerk 9 Date of Dispatch of order 5 "