DCIT CEN CIR 9, MUMBAI v. NEELA P DOSHI, MUMBAI

ITA 3984/MUM/2012 | 2009-2010
Pronouncement Date: 31-07-2015 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 398419914 RSA 2012
Assessee PAN AACPD6940Q
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 3984/MUM/2012
Duration Of Justice 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 24 day(s)
Appellant DCIT CEN CIR 9, MUMBAI
Respondent NEELA P DOSHI, MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 31-07-2015
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 31-07-2015
Date Of Final Hearing 18-05-2015
Next Hearing Date 18-05-2015
Assessment Year 2009-2010
Appeal Filed On 06-06-2012
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH B MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY GARG JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.3513/M/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 SMT. NEELA P. DOSHI GR. FLR ACME GHAR 19 KD ROAD VILE PARLE (WEST) MUMBAI 400 056 PAN: AACPD 6940Q VS. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-9 OLD CGO BLDG. MUMBAI - 400020 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.3514/M/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 SMT. ALKA MUNISH DOSHI GR. FLR ACME GHAR 19 KD ROAD VILE PARLE (WEST) MUMBAI 400 056 PAN: AACPD 7338L VS. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-9 OLD CGO BLDG. MUMBAI - 400020 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.3984/M/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-9 ROOM NO.806 8 TH FLOOR OLD CGO ANNEXE BLDG. M.K. ROAD MUMBAI - 400020 VS. SMT. NEELA P. DOSHI ACME GHAR 19 K.D. ROAD VILE PARLE (WEST) MUMBAI 400 056 PAN: AACPD 6940Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PRESENT FOR: ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VIJAY MEHTA A.R. REVENUE BY : SHRI YOGESH KAMAT D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 18.05.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31.07.2015 ITA NO.3513/M/2012 ITA NO.3514/M/2012 & ITA NO.3984/M/2012 SMT. NEELA P. DOSHI & SMT. ALKA MUNISH DOSHI 2 O R D E R PER SANJAY GARG JUDICIAL MEMBER: OUT OF THE ABOVE TITLED THREE APPEALS TWO ARE CROS S APPEALS I.E. ONE BY THE ASSESSEE NEELA P. DOSHI AND THE OTHER BY THE RE VENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) [(HEREINAF TER REFERRED TO AS THE CIT(A)] DATED 07.03. 2012. THE THIRD APPEAL HAS BEE N PREFERRED BY DIFFERENT BUT RELATED ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A ) OF THE EVEN DATE. SINCE THE FACTS AND ISSUES INVOLVED THEREIN ARE IDENTICAL IN NATURE HENCE THE SAME ARE TAKEN TOGETHER FOR DISPOSAL WITH THIS COMMON ORDER. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE THE FACTS HAVE BEEN TAKEN FROM ITA NO. 3513/M/2012 IN THE CASE OF SMT. NEELA P. DOSHI. ITA NO.3513/M/2012 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL HAS CHALLENGED THE A CTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE AO) AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS IN RELATIO N TO JEWELLERY FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ACTION. 3. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT A SEARCH ACTION U/S 132 OF THE I.T. ACT WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE CASE OF ACME GROUP COMPANIES AND RELATED PERSONS. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO COVERED IN THE SAID SEARCH ACTION . THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNER IN VARIOUS FIRMS ENGAGED IN BUSINESS OF BUILDER AND DEVELOPER. DURING THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH OPERATION TOTAL JEWELLERY VAL UED AT RS.17330641/- WAS FOUND FROM THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE OUT OF WHI CH JEWELLERY VALUED AT RS.36 93 026/- WAS SEIZED. DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW CAUSE WHY JEWELLE RY TO THE EXTENT WHICH HAS NOT BEEN REFLECTED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME SHOULD N OT BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED AND ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.3513/M/2012 ITA NO.3514/M/2012 & ITA NO.3984/M/2012 SMT. NEELA P. DOSHI & SMT. ALKA MUNISH DOSHI 3 4. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF THE JEWELLE RY AND MADE HIS SUBMISSIONS VIDE LETTER DATED 4.10.2010 AND FURTHER VIDE LETTER DATED 8.11.2010. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT LOOKING TO THE STATUS OF FAMILY AND THE CUSTOMS AND THE PRACTICE OF THE COMMUNITY TO WHICH THE FAMILY B ELONGED THE JEWELLERY FOUND SHOULD BE TREATED AS DULY EXPLAINED. THE AO H OWEVER DID NOT AGREE WITH THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE OBSERVE D THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL JEWELLERY FOUND THE JEWELLERY VALUING RS.21 58 524 /- HAD REMAINED UNEXPLAINED. HE ACCORDINGLY ADDED THE SAID AMOUNT I NTO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 69A OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED BY THE ADDIT ION MADE BY THE AO THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). 5. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THA T THE JEWELLERY FOUND DURING THE SEARCH ACTION BELONGED TO THE MEMBERS OF THE DOSHI FAMILY INCLUDING THE ASSESSEE THE NAMES OF WHOM ARE MENTI ONED AS UNDER: I) MR. PRAVIN H DOSHI (SPOUSE OF APPELLANT) II) MRS. NEELA PRAVIN DOSHI (SELF-APPELLANT) III) MR. MUNISH P DOSHI (SON OF APPELLANT) IV) MRS. ALKA MUNISH DOSHI (DAUGHTER IN LAW) V) MASTER MANAV MUNISH DOSHI (GRAND SON OF APPELLA NT) VI) MR. RAJESH P DOSHI (SON OF APPELLANT) VII) MRS. PRITI RAJESH DOSHI (DAUGHTER IN LAW) VIII) PRAVIN H DOSHI (HUF) IX) MRS. RANJAN BEN R DOSHI. (WIDOW OF LATE SHRI R ATILAL DOSHI) (AUNTY OF SPOUSE) THE ASSESSEE ALSO FURNISHED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCES TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF ACQUISITION OF THE JEWELLERY IN QUESTION: A) JEWELLARY VALUATION REPORT DT.1.11.1995 OF SURES H C KAPOOR GOVERNMENT APPROVED VALUE (DURING SEARCH ACTION IN 1995) B) JEWELLARY VALUATION REPORT DT.23.4.2004 AS ON 3 1.3.2004 OF SHRENIK R SHAH (JEWELLARY REPORT OBTAINED FOR WEALTH TAX PURPOSE) B) JEWELLARY VALUATION REPORT DT.3.4.2000 AS ON 31.3.2 000 IN CASE OF PRITI RAJESH DOSHI (MAIDEN NAME PRITI VINOD AMBANI) C) BILLS FOR PURCHASE OF JEWELLARY & MAKING CHARGES AL ONG WITH BANK STATEMENT/ ITA NO.3513/M/2012 ITA NO.3514/M/2012 & ITA NO.3984/M/2012 SMT. NEELA P. DOSHI & SMT. ALKA MUNISH DOSHI 4 PASS BOOK REFLECTING PAYMENT MADE ALONG WITH FEW LE DGER ACCOUNT OF PARTIES. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED THE LEDGER OF THE JEWELLERY ACCOUNT REFLECTING THE JEWELLERY PURCHASED FOR THE RELEVANT PERIOD. THE A SSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT CONSIDERING THE FINANCIAL STATUS OF THE FAMILY OF THE ASSESSEE THE JEWELLERY FOUND DURING COURSE OF SEARCH ACTION COULD NOT BE R EGARDED AS UNEXPLAINED. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT SOME OF THE JEW ELLERY WAS RECEIVED AS GIFT FROM RELATIVES ON SOCIAL AND RELIGIOUS OCCASIONS LI KE MARRIAGE BIRTHDAY ANNIVERSARY ETC. IT WAS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT SOME OF THE JEWELLERY WAS REMADE OUT OF THE OLD JEWELLERY. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUB MITTED THAT THE TOTAL WEIGHT OF JEWELLERY FOUND MATCHED WITH THE JEWELLERY ACCOUNTE D BY THE DOSHI FAMILY. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN CASE OF SOME JEWELLERY THE DESCRIPTION DID NOT MATCH EITHER DUE TO ABSENCE OF FULL DESCRIP TION OF THE JEWELLERY MADE BY THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUER DURING SEARCH ACTION OR DUE TO THE REMAKING OF THE JEWELLERY FROM THE OLD JEWELLERY ITEMS. IT WAS SUB MITTED THAT EVEN IN RESPECT OF DIAMOND JEWELLERY THE OVERALL CARAT WEIGHT OF DIAM ONDS APPROXIMATELY MATCHED WITH THAT WAS ALREADY ACCOUNTED BY ASSESSEE S FAMILY MEMBERS. IT WAS THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONS UNDER SE CTION 69A WERE NOT WARRANTED IN THIS CASE. 6. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION S OF THE ASSESSEE OBSERVED THAT IT WAS CORRECT THAT THE OVERALL WEIGH T OF THE GOLD JEWELLERY DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMILY IN THE BOOK S OF ACCOUNTS WAS IN EXCESS OF GOLD JEWELLERY FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ACTION HOWEVER THE DEPARTMENT HAD TO MATCH EACH AND EVERY ITEM FOUND W ITH THE ITEMS DECLARED IN THE VALUATION REPORTS OF THE APPROVED VALUERS AS F URNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THAT THE ONUS WAS ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE SOUR CE OF ACQUISITION OF EACH AND EVERY ITEM OF JEWELLERY. HE THEREFORE CALLED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO PREPARE AN ITEM VISE CHART SHOWING WHICH OF THE ITEMS COULD BE SAID TO BE MATCHING AND ITA NO.3513/M/2012 ITA NO.3514/M/2012 & ITA NO.3984/M/2012 SMT. NEELA P. DOSHI & SMT. ALKA MUNISH DOSHI 5 ANOTHER CHART IN RESPECT OF ITEMS WHICH DID NOT MAT CH WITH THE DESCRIPTION OF ITEMS MADE IN THE VALUATION REPORT FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE MADE CHARTS NO. I & II IN THE ABOVE MANNER IN RELAT ION TO GOLD ITEMS THE CONTENTS OF WHICH HAVE ALSO BEEN REPRODUCED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 7. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER TALLYING AND MAKING COMPAR ATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE ITEMS DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPROVED VAL UERS REPORT WITH THAT OF THE REPORT MADE DURING SEARCH ACTION OBSERVED THAT MOS T OF THE ITEMS MENTIONED IN CHART NO.I MATHED WITH THE DESCRIPTION GIVEN IN THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE APPROVED VALUER EXCEPT ITEMS NO.24 & 25 BEING GOLD GINNI AND GOLD COIN RESPECTIVELY WHICH THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE BE EN RECEIVED AS GIFT. THE LD. CIT(A) THEREFORE DIRECTED THE AO TO DELETE THE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF THE REMAINING ITEMS MENTIONED IN CHART NO. I EXCEPT TH E ABOVE STATED TWO ITEMS AMOUNTING TO RS.82 392/- AND RS.75 823/- RESPECTIVE LY. IN RELATION TO CHART NO.II THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVE D THAT THE ITEMS MENTIONED IN CHART NO.II DID NOT EXACTLY MATCH WITH THE DESCRIPT ION MADE IN THE APPROVED VALUERS REPORTS. HE THEREFORE CONFIRMED THE ADD ITIONS IN RESPECT OF ITEMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY MENTIONED IN CHART NO.II. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO PREPAR E SIMILAR CHARTS IN RESPECT OF DIAMOND JEWELLERY. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE SA ID CHARTS ACCORDINGLY. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER TALLYING THE EACH OF THE ITEMS WI TH THAT OF VALUATION REPORT OF THE APPROVED VALUER FOUND THAT THOUGH NUMBER OF PI ECES OF DIAMONDS IN RESPECT OF DIAMOND JEWELLERY WERE MATCHING IN ALMOS T ALL THE ITEMS; HOWEVER THERE WAS DIFFERENCE IN THE ESTIMATE OF CARAT WEIGH T. HE THEREFORE HELD THAT THE DESCRIPTION DID NOT EXACTLY MATCH IN RESPECT OF DIA MOND JEWELLERY. HE ACCORDINGLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IN RESPECT OF DIAMOND JEWELLERY. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A ) THE ASSESSEE HAS COME IN APPEAL BEFORE US. ITA NO.3513/M/2012 ITA NO.3514/M/2012 & ITA NO.3984/M/2012 SMT. NEELA P. DOSHI & SMT. ALKA MUNISH DOSHI 6 9. THE LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BROUGHT OUR ATT ENTION TO THE DETAILS AND DESCRIPTION OF THE ITEMS AS REPRODUCED BY THE LD. C IT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. INVITING OUR ATTENTION TO THE PAGE 12 OF TH E IMPUGNED ORDER IN RELATION TO ITEM NO.29 OF LOCKER NO.571 THE DESCRIPTION HAS BE EN MENTIONED AS TANMANYA PENDANT WITH CHAIN. THE NUMBER OF PIECE S OF DIAMOND IN THE SAID PENDANT HAS BEEN MENTIONED AS 59. THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT IT MATCHED WITH ITEM AT SERIAL NO. 9 OF THE VALUERS REPORT WH EREIN THE DESCRIPTION HAS BEEN MENTIONED AS DOUBLE STRING BLACK BEADS MANGALSUTRA WITH PENDANT WHEREIN THE TOTAL NUMBER OF DIAMONDS IS ALSO MENTIONED AS 5 9. HOWEVER THE CARAT WEIGHT MENTIONED BY THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUER IS 0.88 WHEREAS IN THE ASSESSEES VALUATION REPORT IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED AS 118. HOWEVER THE GOLD GROSS WEIGHT MENTIONED BY THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUER I S 21.850 WHEREAS IN THE VALUATION REPORT PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE IT HAS BE EN MENTIONED AS 20.3. SIMILARLY IN RESPECT OF ITEM NO.19 I.E. BANGLES W ITH RODIUM THE GOLD GROSS WEIGHT ALSO MATCHED AND THE PIECES OF DIAMONDS MENT IONED ALSO MATCHED. HOWEVER THE ESTSIMATION OF CARAT VALUE BY THE GOVE RNMENT VALUER IS AT 1.68 WHEREAS AS MENTIONED IN THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE ASSESSEE IS AT 2.75. SIMILARLY IN RESPECT OF ITEM NO.21 EARTOPES GOLD GROSS WEIGHT ALSO MATCHES AND NUMBER OF PIECES OF DIAMOND ALSO MATCHES. HOWE VER THERE IS A SMALL DIFFERENCE IN CARAT WEIGHT OF DIAMONDS. THE LD. A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION IN RESPECT OF OTHER ITEMS ALS O WHERE THE GROSS GOLD WEIGHT OF THE ITEMS MATCHES WITH THAT OF THE DESCRIPTION M ENTIONED IN THE VALUATION REPORTS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND EVEN NUMBER O F PIECES OF DIAMONDS IN THE JEWELLERY ALSO MATCHED. HOWEVER THERE WAS DIF FERENCE IN ESTIMATION OF CARAT WEIGHT. 10. WE FIND THAT IT IS NOT A CASE WHERE THE ITEMS M ENTIONED IN THE VALUATION REPORTS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MATCH AT ALL WITH THAT OF THE ITEMS OF ITA NO.3513/M/2012 ITA NO.3514/M/2012 & ITA NO.3984/M/2012 SMT. NEELA P. DOSHI & SMT. ALKA MUNISH DOSHI 7 JEWELLERY WHICH WERE FOUND DURING THE SEARCH ACTION . NOT ONLY THE DESCRIPTION OF THE JEWELLERY SETS BANGLES PENDANT EARTOPES E TC. MATCHED WITH THE VALUATION REPORT BUT ALSO THE NUMBER OF DIAMONDS EM BEDDED IN THE JEWELLERY. SO FAR AS THE ESTIMATION OF CARAT WEIGHT IS CONCERN ED IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE WEIGHT WAS NOT MEASURED BY EXTRACTING THE DIAM ONDS OUT OF THE JEWELLERY BUT WAS JUST ESTIMATED BY THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUER. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THE MINOR DIFFERENCE IN CARAT WEIGHT VALUE ESPECIA LLY WHEN THE SAME WAS NOT EXACTLY WEIGHED BY THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUER COULD NO T BE THE SOLE CRITERIA TO HOLD THAT THE DESCRIPTION OF JEWELLERY DID NOT MATC H. THE LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER INVITED OU R ATTENTION TO PAGE NO1 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH IS THE SUMMARY OF THE GOLD JEW ELLERY. HE HAS EXPLAINED THAT THE TOTAL GOLD JEWELLERY SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS IN THE BOOKS WAS OF 9919.790 GMS. WHEREAS THE JEWELLER Y FOUND AND VALUED BY THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUER WAS OF 9145.380 GMS. WHICH WAS LESS THAN THE JEWELLERY ALREADY DECLARED BY THE FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE ASSES SEE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. SIMILARLY IN RESPECT OF DIAMOND JEWELLER Y THE ASSESSEE FAMILY HAS ALREADY DECLARED 222.80 CARATS OF DIAMOND WHEREAS THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUER HAD ESTIMATED ONLY 203.29 CARAT OF THE DIAMONDS WHI CH WAS LESS THAN THE TOTAL DIAMOND WEIGHT/CARATS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. EV EN THE NUMBER OF DIAMONDS EMBEDDED IN THE EACH ITEM OF THE JEWELLERY MATCHED WITH THAT OF THE VALUATION REPORT. 11. THE LD. A.R. HAS FURTHER INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE DECISION OF THE JODHPUR BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. ARJUN DASS KALWANI 101 ITD 337 WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THAT SIMP LY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT LEAD EVIDENCE FOR CONVERSION OR REMAKING OF THE JEWELLERY POSSESSION OF WHICH WAS OTHERWISE ACCEPTED IT COUL D NOT BE SAID THAT HOLDING OF GOLD JEWELLERY TO THAT EXTENT WAS UNEXPLAINED E SPECIALLY WHEN EVIDENCE WAS ITA NO.3513/M/2012 ITA NO.3514/M/2012 & ITA NO.3984/M/2012 SMT. NEELA P. DOSHI & SMT. ALKA MUNISH DOSHI 8 AVAILABLE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY BEEN ASSESS ED AT MUCH MORE JEWELLERY IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR. FURTHER IN THE CASE O F MRS. VINITA S. JHUNJHUNWALA VS. ACIT IN ITA NO.8837/M/2010 FOR A. Y. 2008-09 DECIDED ON 20.01.2014 THE CO-ORDINATE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONCLUDED THAT WHEN QUANTITY OF JEWELLERY DISCLOSED BY THE AS SESSEE IS SAME AS THE QUANTITY OF JEWELLERY FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SE ARCH NO ADDITION IS WARRANTED MERELY BECAUSE THE DESCRIPTION IS NOT MAT CHING. IT IS A VITAL FACT THAT LADIES GET JEWELLERY CONVERTED AS PER LATEST DESIGN AND FOR WHICH EVEN THE CONCERNED MAN IN THE FAMILY IS BEING NOT INFORMED. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES MERELY BECAUSE OF CONVERSION OF SUCH JEWELLERY CAN NOT BE MADE BASIS FOR MAKING ADDITION WHEN THE JEWELLERY DISCLOSED BY TH E ASSESSEE EITHER IN HIS OWN HAND OR IN THE HANDS OF THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS PR IOR TO THE DATE OF SEARCH IS EQUAL TO OR MORE THAN THE JEWELLERY FOUND DURING TH E COURSE OF SEARCH. IN THE CASE OF RAKESH J. PARIKH V. DCIT IN IT(SS)A NO.13 6/M/2000 FOR BLOCK PERIOD 01.04.1987 TO 25.09.1997 DECIDED VIDE ORDER DATED 26.02.2004 THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS OBSERVED THAT ME RELY BECAUSE THE DESCRIPTION OF SOME OF THE ORNAMENTS IN THE WEALTH- TAX RETURN DID NOT TALLY WITH THE ORNAMENTS FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEARCH IS NO GR OUND FOR REJECTING THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF REMAKING OF THE ORNAMENTS EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRESERVED THE BILL OF REMAKING CHARGES. IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. SHRI KAMALKISHAN H. AGGARWAL IN ITA NO.777/M/1998 AND I TA NO.5127/M/1995 & OTHERS DECIDED VIDE COMMON ORDER DATED 21.06.13 THE TRIBUNAL UNDER SOMEWHAT SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES HAS OBSERVED THAT NO RMAL PRESUMPTION IS THAT DURING THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH THE ENTIRE JEWELLE RY FOUND AT RESIDENCE IN BANK LOCKERS OTHER PREMISES AND ALSO ON PERSON IS DULY INVENTORISED. IF THE WEIGHT OF THE JEWELLERY FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEARCH IS MORE T HAN THE WEIGHT DECLARED IN WEALTH TAX RETURNS THE DIFFERENCE HAS TO BE TAKEN TO BE UNEXPLAINED JEWELLERY UNLESS THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO ESTABLISH THAT FRESH JEWELLERY WAS ITA NO.3513/M/2012 ITA NO.3514/M/2012 & ITA NO.3984/M/2012 SMT. NEELA P. DOSHI & SMT. ALKA MUNISH DOSHI 9 PURCHASED AND SOURCES THEREOF ARE EXPLAINED. IT IS NORMAL THAT SOME OF THE ORNAMENTS ARE DISMANTLED AND REMADE. IT WOULD BE UN REASONABLE TO TAKE A STAND THAT ALL THE ORNAMENTS FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEARCH MUST ACCURATELY COMPARE IN DESCRIPTION AND WEIGHT WITH THE ORNAMENTS DECLARED IN THE WEALTH TAX RETURN. THE POSSIBILITY THAT SOME OF THE ITEMS COULD HAVE B EEN REMADE CANNOT BE RULED OUT. THE IMPORTANT POINT IS THAT THE ORNAMENTS FOUN D SHOULD NOT BE IN EXCESS IN QUANTITY AS COMPARED TO THE ORNAMENTS DECLARED IN T HE WEALTH TAX RETURNS. OUR ATTENTION HAS ALSO BEEN INVITED TO THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER O F WEALTH TAX VS. B.M. KANODIA (HUF) WHEREIN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN PA RA 5 OF THE ORDER HAS OBSERVED THAT WHERE THE GOVERNMENT VALUER ADOPTED T HE WEIGHT OF THE DIAMOND BY ESTIMATING WITHOUT SEPARATING THE DIAMOND FROM T HE METAL THE REPORTS OF VALUERS COULD NOT BE HELD TO BE ACCURATE AND EXACT AND THAT THE POSSIBILITY IN DIFFERENCE OF WEIGHT COULD NOT BE RULED OUT. 12. IN THE CASE IN HAND ALSO IF THE DIFFERENCE IN WEIGHT IS IGNORED THE DESCRIPTION OF THE ITEMS OF THE JEWELLERY ALMOST TA LLIED WITH THAT OF THE ITEMS ALREADY DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. MOREOVER THE OVER ALL WEIGHT OF JEWELLERY ALREADY DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HER BOOKS OF AC COUNTS IS MORE THAN THAT OF THE JEWELLERY FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ACT ION. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE STATED FACTS AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE PROPOSITION OF LAW LAID DOWN VIDE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS ON THIS ISSUE AS DISCUSSED ABOVE IT CANNOT BE SAID IN THIS CASE THAT THE JEWELLERY FOUND DURING THE SEARCH ACTION W AS UNEXPLAINED. THE ADDITIONS THUS IN THIS CASE ARE NOT WARRANTED AND T HE SAME ARE ORDERED TO BE DELETED. REVENUES APPEAL I.E. ITA NO.3984/M/2012 : 13. THE REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL HAS AGITATED THE A CTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING CERTAIN ADDITIONS IN RELATION TO THE ITEMS OF JEWELLERY WHICH THE LD. ITA NO.3513/M/2012 ITA NO.3514/M/2012 & ITA NO.3984/M/2012 SMT. NEELA P. DOSHI & SMT. ALKA MUNISH DOSHI 10 CIT(A) FOUND TO BE MATCHING WITH THE VALUATION REPO RT OF APPROVED VALUER FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF OUR ABOVE DI SCUSSION OF THE MATTER WE HAVE ALREADY DELETED THE ADDITIONS IN RESPECT OF RE MAINING ITEMS ALSO. WE THEREFORE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER O F THE LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF ITEMS WHICH HE FOUND TO BE MATCHING WITH THE ITEMS ALREADY DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE VALUATION R EPORT AS WELL AS IN HER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS LESS THAN RS. 4 LAKH AND AS PER THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIR ECT TAXES (CBDT) VIDE INSTRUCTION NO.5 DATED 10.07.2014 THE APPEAL IS OTHERWISE LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED UNDER SECTION 268A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. WE THEREFORE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. ITA NO.3514/M/2012 IN THE CASE OF SMT. ALKA M. DOSH I 14. THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE ARE ALMOST IDENTI CAL. IN THIS CASE THE ADDITION HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN RE SPECT OF TWO ITEMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY VALUED AT RS.2 76 727/-. WE HAVE ALREADY OBSERVED ABOVE THAT THE TOTAL VALUE OF THE JEWELLERY DECLARED BY THE DOSHI FAMILY WAS MORE THAN THE TOTAL JEWELLERY FOUND DURING THE SEARCH ACTION AND IN VIEW OF OUR OBSERVATIONS MADE ABOVE THE ADDITIONS IN THIS CASE ARE ALSO NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW AND THE SAME ARE ACCORDINGLY ORDERED TO BE DELE TED. 15. IN THE RESULT APPEALS FILED BY BOTH THE ASSESS EES ARE ALLOWED WHEREAS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS HEREBY DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31.07.2015. SD/- SD/- (G.S. PANNU) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.3513/M/2012 ITA NO.3514/M/2012 & ITA NO.3984/M/2012 SMT. NEELA P. DOSHI & SMT. ALKA MUNISH DOSHI 11 MUMBAI DATED: .07.2015. * KISHORE SR. P.S. COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT CONCERNED MUMBAI THE CIT (A) CONCERNED MUMBAI THE DR CONCERNED BENCH //TRUE COPY// [ BY ORD ER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT MUMBAI.