The Dy,CIT., Central Circle-3,, Surat v. Meena G. Agarwal, Mumbai

ITSSA 590/AHD/2012 | 2010-2011
Pronouncement Date: 30-04-2015 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 59020516 RSA 2012
Assessee PAN ADAPA5628B
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITSSA 590/AHD/2012
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 26 day(s)
Appellant The Dy,CIT., Central Circle-3,, Surat
Respondent Meena G. Agarwal, Mumbai
Appeal Type Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-04-2015
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 30-04-2015
Date Of Final Hearing 27-04-2015
Next Hearing Date 27-04-2015
Assessment Year 2010-2011
Appeal Filed On 04-12-2012
Judgment Text
B IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH AHMEDABAD 00 ! ' #$ % & BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT JUDICIAL MEMBER !./ IT(SS)A NO. 590/AHD/2012 WITH CO NO.37/AHD/2013 % ) *)/ ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 DCIT CENT.CIR.3 SURAT. VS MEENA G. AGARWAL 18 KAUSHALYA 3 RD FLOOR 11 TH ROAD JVPD SCHEME JUHU MUMBAI. PAN: ADAPA 5628 B + / (APPELLANT) -. + / (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI O.P. VAISHNAV SR.DR ASSESSEE(S) BY : SHRI S.N. SOPARKAR / DATE OF HEARING : 18/04/2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30/04/2015 // O R D E R PER N.S. SAINI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTION BY THE ASSESSEE AGA INST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (A)II AHMEDABAD DA TED 28.9.2012. 2. IN THE REVENUES APPEAL THE SOLE ISSUE INVOLVED IS THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.32 55 685/- OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.53 27 057/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED JEWELLERY. IN THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE THE SOLE ISSUE INVOLVED IS THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS.20 71 372/- IN RESPECT OF UNACCOUNTED JEWELLERY. IT(SS)A NO.590/AHD/2012 WITH CO 2 3. AS THE FACTS AND ISSUE INVOLVED ARE SIMILAR WE ARE DISPOSING OF THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND THE GROUND OF THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE TOGETHER AS UNDER. 4. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE AO OBSE RVED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE IT AC T 1961 CARRIED OUT ON 16.7.2009 IN THE CASE OF N.R. AGARWAL GROUP AND OTHERS JEWELLERY OF YELLOW METALS AND DIAMOND WERE FOUND AND SEIZED FRO M THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER THE JEWELLERY F OUND IN LOCKERS WERE OPERATED AND BROUGHT TO THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESS EE AND VALUED. THE FAMILY OF SHRI GAJENDRA AGARWAL CONSISTS OF HIM SELF HIS WIFE SMT. MEENA AGARWAL AND DAUGHTER NEHA AGARWAL AND NIKHAR AGARWAL. THE DETAILS OF THE JEWELLERY FOUND AND SEIZED ARE AS UN DER: JEWELLERY FOUND JEWELLERY SEIZED NAME OF ASSESSEE PREMISES DIAMOND GOLD IN GRAM (GROSS WT.) SILVER (IN KGS.) VALUE (IN RS.) DIAMOND GOLD IN GRAMS SILVER VALUE (IN RS.) MRS. MEENA G. AGARWAL RESIDENCE AT KAAUSHALYA JUHU SCHEME MUMBAI 5776 325.10 - 3921655 - - - - MRS. MEENA G. AGARWAL RESIDENCE AT KAAUSHALYA JUHU SCHEME MUMBAI - 245.600 - 300140 - - - - MRS. MEENA G. AGARWAL ON PERSON - 0.040 21.300 - 25249 - - - - MRS. MEENA G. AGARWAL RESIDENCE AT KAAUSHALYA JUHU SCHEME MUMBAI - - 56 1008000 - - - - MRS. MEENA G. AGARWAL RESIDENCE AT KAAUSHALYA JUHU SCHEME MUMBAI 495.15 2530.880 - 21299940 224.49 1446.87 - 92067 60 MRS. RESIDENCE - 3648.730 - 4004245 - - - - IT(SS)A NO.590/AHD/2012 WITH CO 3 MEENA G. AGARWAL AT KAAUSHALYA JUHU SCHEME MUMBAI 5. SMT. MEENA G. AGARWAL IS ASSESSED TO WEALTH-TAX. SHE HAD FILED HER WEALTH TAX RETURN FOR THE ASSTT.YEAR 2008-09 ON 31.7.2008 WITH ACIT VAPI VIDE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT NO.397. IN THE VAL UATION REPORT DATED 20.8.2005 ENCLOSED WITH THE RETURN OF WEALTH SHE HAD DISCLOSED JEWELLERY AS UNDER: DIAMOND IN CARATS GOLD IN GRAMS SILVER IN KGS. VALUE IN RS. 239.17 1905.23 - 8875900 726.31 866.1 - 9828000 - 852 - 420000 - 1817.900 - 908950 - - 35.40 354000 THE AO THEREAFTER OBSERVED THAT THE TOTAL JEWELLER Y DISCLOSED IN THE WEALTH-TAX RETURN BY THE SMT. MEENA G. AGARWAL AND THE JEWELLERY FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEARCH WAS AS UNDER: DIAMOND IN CTS GOLD IN GRAMS (GROSS WT.) VALUE (IN RS.) DIAMOND IN CTS. GOLD IN GRAMS (GROSS WT.) VALUE (IN RS.) DIAMOND IN CTS. GOLD IN GRAMS VALUE (IN RS.) 965.48 5441.23 20032850 552.95 6771.61 2 95 51 229 - 1330.38 THE AO ALSO OBSERVED THAT AT TIME OF SEARCH DIAMON D JEWELLERY FOUND HAS BEEN COMPARED WITH THE DESCRIPTION OF DIAMOND J EWELLERY MENTIONED IN THE VALUATION REPORT ENCLOSED WITH THE WEALTH TAX RETURN OF SMT. MEENA G. AGARWAL. THE COMPARISON WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF NUMBER OF DIAMOND PIECES GROSS WEIGHT CARAT WEIGH T AND DESCRIPTION MENTIONED IN THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE ASSESSEE A ND THAT OF THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUER. IT WAS FOUND THAT THE DESCRIP TION OF DIAMOND JEWELLERY GROSS WEIGHT CARAT WEIGHT AND NUMBER OF DIAMOND PIECES IT(SS)A NO.590/AHD/2012 WITH CO 4 MENTIONED IN THE REPORT OF DEPARTMENTAL VALUER AT T HE TIME OF SEARCH WAS NOT TALLYING WITH THE DESCRIPTION OF DIAMOND JE WELLERY GROSS WEIGHT CARAT WEIGHT AND NUMBER OF DIAMOND PIECES MENTIONED IN THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE ASSESSEE ENCLOSED WITH THE WEALTH-TAX RETURN. THE JEWELLERY OF 224.49 DIAMONDS AND 1446.87 GRAMS OF G OLD VALUED AT RS.92 06 760/- WAS THEREFORE SEIZED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH. THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH THAT THE DIAMOND JEWELLERY IS NOT TALLYING AS SHE HAS REMADE SOME OF THE DIAMO ND JEWELLERY. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOW ING PLEAS: I) JEWELLERY TO THE EXTENT OF RS.74 64 673/-HAS BEEN S EIZED ERRONEOUSLY AS EITHER THE GROSS WEIGHT OR CARAT WEI GHT OR DESCRIPTION OF THE JEWELLERY MENTIONED IN THE VALUA TION REPORT OF THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUER MADE AT THE TIME OF SEARCH TALLIED WITH THE JEWELLERY MENTIONED IN THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE ASSESSEE ENCLOSED WITH THE WEALTH TAX RETURN; II) JEWELLERY TO THE EXTENT OF RS.10 02 596/- HAS BEEN RE- MADE/ALTERED FROM THE ORIGINAL JEWELLERY WHICH HAS BEEN DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HER WEALTH-TAX RETURN. THE ASSESSEE HAS ENCLOSED REMAKING BILLS ALONG WITH THE APPLICATION; III) THERE WAS CALCULATION ERROR TO THE EXTENT OF RS.77 107/-. 6. THE AO THEREAFTER OBSERVED THAT THESE PLEAS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: I) GROSS WEIGHT OF THE JEWELLERY II) CARAT WEIGHT OF DIAMOND/STONE III) NUMBER OF PIECES OF DIAMOND/STONE IV) DESCRIPTION OF THE JEWELLERY IN THE DEPARTMENTAL VA LUATION REPORT AND ASSESSEES VALUATION REPORT. IT(SS)A NO.590/AHD/2012 WITH CO 5 7. IT WAS FOUND THAT THERE WAS GROSS VARIATION IN E ITHER OR ALL OF THE ABOVE CRITERIA. THE JEWELLERY WHICH WAS FOUND TO BE NOT MATCHING IN ANY OF THESE FOUR CRITERIA WITH THE ASSESSEES VALU ATION REPORT WAS THEREFORE SEIZED. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE PLE A THAT JEWELLERY TO THE EXTENT OF RS.74 64 673/- WHICH HAS BEEN SEIZED WAS MATCHING OR NEARLY MATCHING WITH THE VALUATION REPORT ENCLOSED WITH THE WEALTH-TAX RETURN. THIS CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT CORREC T. THE ASSESSEE HAS IN HER LETTER DATED 26.9.2009 ENCLOSED THE VALUATIO N REPORT OF DEPARTMENTAL VALUER AND VALUATION REPORT OF HER VAL UER. A PERUSAL OF THE CHART SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOWED THAT THE RE WAS GROSS- MISMATCH BETWEEN BOTH VALUATION REPORTS IN TERMS OF ABOVE FOUR CRITERIA MENTIONED. FROM THE COMPARISON BETWEEN THE VALUATI ON OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE VALUER OF THE DEPARTMENT IT COULD BE SEEN THAT THERE WAS VIDE VARIATION IN GROSS WEIGHT CARAT WEIGHT N UMBER OF DIAMOND PIECES OF DESCRIPTION. SIMPLY SPEAKING IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE JEWELLERY FOUND AND SEIZED AND JEWELLERY REFLECTED IN WEALTH-TAX RETURN WAS THE SAME. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT DISCHARGE TH E ONUS OF PROVING THAT THIS WAS THE SAME JEWELLERY WHICH WAS BEING RE FLECTED IN THE WEALTH-TAX RETURNS. HE THEREFORE MADE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF UNEXPLAINED EXCESS JEWELLERY AS UNDER: TOTAL UNACCOUNTED JEWELLERY 9206760 UNACCOUNTED JEWELLERY AFTER RECTIFICATION OF CALCULATION MISTAKE 9129653 JEWELLERY CLAIMED TO BE REMADE 1002596 DISCLOSURE 2800000 TOTAL ADDITION 53227057 8. THEREAFTER THE AO OBSERVED THAT DURING THE ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE HAS IDENTIFIED THE DISCLO SURE OF RS.28.00 LAKHS AS INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY. THE CLAIM OF T HE REMAKING OF JEWELLERY OF RS.10 02 596/- HAS BEEN VERIFIED TO BE TRUE. SUBJECT TO THE ABOVE HE MADE ADDITION OF RS.53 27 057/-. IT(SS)A NO.590/AHD/2012 WITH CO 6 9. ON APPEAL THE CIT(A) HELD AS UNDER: 4. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE BASIS OF ADDITION MAD E BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE SUBMISSION AND RECONCILIATION STATEMENT FILED BY THE APPELLANT AND ALSO PERUSED THE VALUATION REPORT BY THE APPELLANT'S VALUER AS ON 13 TH DECEMBER 1997 PREPARED AT THE TIME OF VDIS 25 TH JUNE 1998 23 RD JULY 2001 AND 20TH AUGUST 2005. THE VALUATION REPORTS HAVE BEEN FILED BEFORE THE ASSESS ING OFFICER AND ALSO DURING] THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. OUT OF TOTA L SEIZURE OF DIAMOND JEWELLERY VALUED AT RS. 91 29 653 THE ASSE SSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT TO THE EX TENT OF DIAMOND JEWELLERY VALUED AT RS] 10 02 596 ON ACCOUNT OF ALT ERATION AND REMAKING. OUT OF BALANCE JEWELLERY THE APPELLANT HA S MADE DISCLOSURE OF RS. 28 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY DURING THE SEARCH WHICH HAVE BEEN OFFERED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. FOR BALANCE ADDITION OF RS . 53 27 057 THE APPELLANT HAS FILED RECONCILIATION OF DIAMOND JEWEL LERY AS NARRATED IN DETAIL ABOVE. AS MENTIONED BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER ON PAGE - 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT 552.95 CARATS OF DIAMOND WAS FOUND DURING THE SEARCH AS AGAINST 965.48 CARATS OF DIAMO NDS DECLARED IN WEALTH TAX RETURN PRIOR TO THE DATE OF SEARCH. THE ADDITION OF UNEXPLAINED DIAMOND JEWELLERY HAS BEEN MADE IF DISC REPANCY BETWEEN ASSESSEE'S VALUATION REPORT AND THE DEPARTM ENTAL VALUER'S REPORT PREPARED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH WAS NOTICED O N ANY OF THE FOUR CRITERIA ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THESE CR ITERIA WERE GROSS WEIGHT CARAT WEIGHT OF DIAMONDS NUMBER OF PIECES OF DIAMONDS AND DESCRIPTION OF JEWELLERY. SIMILAR SITUATION WAS FAC ED BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF BLOCK ASSESSMENT RELEVANT TO THE SEA RCH INITIATED ON 1 ST DECEMBER 1995. THE DCIT SPECIAL RANGE - 40 MUMBA I PASSED ORDER UNDER SECTION 158BC(C) R.W.S 143(3) OF THE IT ACT WITH THE APPROVAL OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ON 23RED DEC EMBER 1996. IN THAT ORDER ONE PAIR JHUMKIS ONE NECKLACE SET FOUR BANGLES OF DIAMOND AND ONE RING OF DIAMOND WERE TREATED AS EXP LAINED ON THE GROUND THAT DESCRIPTION OF THE JEWELLERY WERE SAME OR ALMOST IDENTICAL IN THE VALUATION REPORT FILED WITH THE ASSESSEE'S W EALTH TAX RETURN FOR AY 1994-95 AND 1995-96. THE NUMBER OF DIAMONDS WERE ALSO DIFFERENT AND THERE WAS HUMAN ERROR IN COUNTING THE DIAMONDS AS THE DIAMONDS IN QUESTION WERE UNDOUBTEDLY VERY SMALL. THE GROSS WEIGHTS WERE ALSO DIFFERENT BUT THE ITEMS FOUND WERE APPROXIMATELY CL OSE TO THE ITEMS DECLARED AND THERE WAS A REASONABLE EXPLANATION FOR THE SMALL DIFFERENCE NOTED. IT(SS)A NO.590/AHD/2012 WITH CO 7 ON COMPARISON OF ITEMS IN THE RECONCILIATION STATEM ENT (1) (6) (8) (9) (10) (11) (16) (17) (18) (19) (21) (22) (23) AND (27) AS PER VALUATION REPORT DATED 20 TH AUGUST 2005 BY THE ASSESSEES VALUER WITH THE VALUATION REPORT PREPARED BY THE DEPARTMEN TAL VALUER IT IS FOUND THAT DESCRIPTION OF THE ITEMS GROSS WEIGHT NUMBER OF DIAMONDS AND CARAT WEIGHTS ARE ALMOST CLOSE TO THE DESCRIPTI ON IN BOTH THE VALUATION REPORTS. IN THE CASE OF VERY SMALL DIAMON DS THE NUMBER OF DIAMONDS MAY VARY DUE TO COUNTING ERROR BY BOTH THE VALUERS. FOR EXAMPLE IN RECONCILIATION STATEMENT NO. 1 534 DIA MONDS ARE STUDDED IN ONE SET OF NECKLACE IN ASSESSEE'S VALUATION REPO RT WHEREAS IN THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION REPORT CONTAINS THE SAME DES CRIPTION OF ITEMS WITH ALMOST IALL SAME GROSS WEIGHT BUT THE NUMBER O F DIAMONDS WERE 465. SIMILARLY INRECONCILIATION STATEMENT NO. 6 ONE SET OF NECKLACE ONE PAIR EAR-RING AND ONE BRACELET WERE STUDDED WIT H 1586 DIAMONDS AS PER ASSESSEE'S VALUATION REPORT BUT AS DEPARTMEN TAL VALUER THE DESCRIPTION OF ITEMS WERE ALSO SAME WITH COUNTING OF DIAMONDS IN EACH ITEM WERE DIFFERENT BUT THE TOTAL A DIAMONDS STUDDE D IN THESE ITEMS WERE TOTALING TO 1364 IN COMPARISON TO 1586 DIAMONDS I N THE ASSESSEE'S VALUATION REPORT. IN RECONCILIATION STATEMENT (8) O NE RING WITH ONE DIAMOND CONTAINING 3.9 CARATS WEIGHT AND SAME IS DE SCRIBED IN DEPARTMENTAL VALUER'S REPORT AS ONE SOLITAIRE RING WITH ONE DIAMOND AND FOUR CARAT WEIGHT. DESCRIPTION IN BOTH THE VALU ATION REPORTS IS ALMOST THE SAME AND CARAT WEIGHT IS ALMOST SAME WIT H THE DIFFERENCE IN GROSS WEIGHT. SIMILAR MINOR DIFFERENCE IN -ANY OF T HE FOUR CRITERIA ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER RESULTED IN REJECT ION OF ASSESSEE'S EXPLANATION AND ADDITION. FROM THE RECONCILIATION STATEMENTS MENTIONED ABOVE WHERE ONLY MINOR DIFFERENCE IS NOTI CED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH ALMOST SAME DESCRIPTION OF I TEMS IT IS CONCLUDED THAT IN MINOR DIFFERENCE IN ANY OF THE CRITERIA I.E . GROSS WEIGHT CARAT WEIGHT NUMBER OF DIAMONDS AND DESCRIPTION OF THE I TEM SHOULD NOT BE MADE THE SOLE CRITERIA. MINOR DIFFERENCE IN DESCRIP TION IN ITEMS MAY BE DUE TO NOMENCLATURE USED BY TWO VALUERS MINOR DIFF ERENCE IN NUMBER OF DIAMONDS CAN BE DUE TO HUMAN ERROR IN COUNTING V ERY SMALL SIZE OF DIAMONDS AND NEGLIGIBLE DIFFERENCE IN CARAT WEIGHT CAN BE DUE TO HUMAN ERROR AND PERCEPTION OF THE VALUER. AT TIMES THE DIAMOND JEWELLERY ITEMS ARE REFIXED DUE TO LOSS OF SMALL DI AMONDS AND LOOSENING OF THE STUDDED DIAMONDS AND THERE MAY BE MINOR DIF FERENCE IN NUMBER OF DIAMONDS DUE TO THIS REASON ALSO. THE ASSESSEE 'S EXPLANATION FOR (DISCREPANCY IN DIAMOND ITEMS RELATED TO RECONCILIA TION STATEMENTS MENTIONED ABOVE GET STRENGTH FROM THE FACT THAT THE SE ITEMS WERE CONTINUOUSLY INCLUDED IN THE VALUATION REPORTS PREP ARED BY THE ASSESSEE'S VALUER AS ON 13 TH DECEMBER 1997 PREPARED AT THE TIME OF IT(SS)A NO.590/AHD/2012 WITH CO 8 VDIS 25 TH JUNE 1998 23 RD JULY 2001 AND 20 TH AUGUST 2005 AND THE SAME WERE DISCLOSED IN THE WEALTH TAX RETURN. THE O VERALL DIAMOND JEWELLERY FOUND DURING THE SEARCH IS LESS THAN THE DIAMOND JEWELLERY DECLARED IN WT RETURN. IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE RE IS MINOR DIFFERENCE EITHER IN GROSS WEIGHT CARAT WEIGHT OR NUMBER OF DIAMONDS SHOULD NOT BE MADE THE BASIS FOR REJECTION OF ASSESSEE'S EXPLA NATION. WHEREVER THE DESCRIPTION OF THE ITEM AS PER DEPARTMENTAL VALUER' S REPORT IS ALMOST IDENTICAL CLOSE OR THE SAME WITH REGARD TO NAME OF ITEM EITHER IT IS NECKLACE RING JHUIMKI BRACELET EARRINGS AND THE NATURE OF DIAMOND OR PRECIOUS STONE STUDDED IN THE DIAMOND JEWELLERY ITEM IS ALMOST IDENTICAL TO THE DESCRIPTION OF THE ASSESSEE'S VALU ATION REPORT FILED WITH WT RETURN THE APPELLANT'S EXPLANATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED AND IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ADDITION OF THE DIAMOND JEWELLERY AS MENTION ED IN THE RECONCILIATION STATEMENTS (1) (6) (8) (9) (10) (11) (16) (17) (18) (19) (21) (22) (23) AND (27) PARTICULARLY FOR T HE REASON THAT THESE ITEMS WERE NOT PART OF THE JEWELLERY ITEMS IDENTIFI ED FOR DISCLOSURE TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 28 LACS AND THE ITEMS OF JEWELLER Y ALTERED/REMADE AND ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THUS THE ADDITIO N OF RS. 32 55 685 IS DELETED OUT OF ADDITION OF RS. 53 27 057. 4.1 ON COMPARISON OF RECONCILIATION STATEMENT NO. ( 3) (12) (14) (15) (24) (25) AND (C) IT IS FOUND THAT THERE IS GROSS VARIATION IN THE DESCRIPTION OF ITEMS CARAT WEIGHTS AND GROSS WEIGH T OF THE ITEMS IN THE VALUATION REPORT BY THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUER AND BY THE ASSESSEE'S VALUER. FOR EXAMPLE IN RECONCILIATION STATEMENT (1 2) ONE NECKLACE WITH EMERALD CHOWKI HAS BEEN COMPARED WITH ONE NEC KLACE WITH RUBIES. IN RECONCILIATION STATEMENT (25) ONE NATH WITH RED STONE 17/016 CARATS HAS BEEN COMPARED WITH ONE NOSE-RING WITH EI GHT DIAMONDS. THE DESCRIPTION OF ITEM AND DIAMOND DETAILS ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT. SIMILARLY IN RECONCILIATION STATEMENT (C) DIAMOND PENDENT WI TH CHAIN AND ONE PIECE OF 9 CARAT DIAMOND HAS BEEN COMPARED WITH ONE PENDANT WITH 7.02 CARATS OF DIAMOND AND THREE DIAMOND MARQUISES WEIGHT ABOUT 1.41 CARAT SET IN GOLD AS PER ASSESSEE'S VALUATION REPORT. GROSS WEIGHT OF ONE PENDANT WAS 18.800 GMS WHEREAS IN ASSESSEE'S VALUATION REPORT IT WAS 6.900 GMS. THERE CANNOT BE MAJOR DIFFERENCE IN CARAT WEIGHT OF ONE DIAMOND ONLY IN TWO VALUATION REPORTS FOR WHICH VALUE DIFFERENCE WAS RS. 9 LACS. IN VIEW OF THE GROSS DISCREPANCIES IN DESCRIPTION IF THE ITEM GROSS WEIGHT AND CARAT WEIGHT AND DESCRIPTION IN NATURE OF PRECIOUS STONE STUDDED IN THE JEWELLERY THE EXPLAN ATION OF RECONCILIATION STATEMENT (24) (25) AND RECONCILIAT ION STATEMENT (C) THE APPELLANT'S EXPLANATION CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AND THE DIAMOND JEWELLERY IT(SS)A NO.590/AHD/2012 WITH CO 9 MENTIONED IN THESE RECONCILIATION STATEMENT ARE TRE ATED AS DIFFERENT AND UNEXPLAINED AND ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLA INED INVESTMENT IN THESE ITEMS WHICH COMES TO RS. 20 71 372 IS CONF IRMED. THE APPELLANT HAS IN HER ALTERNATE SUBMISSION CLAIMED T HE CREDIT AS PER CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 1916 DATED 11 TH MAY 1994 BUT THE SAME CANNOT BE GRANTED AS NO SEIZURE OF SEPARATE GOLD JEWELLERY WA S MADE AND NO SEPARATE ADDITION WAS MADE FOR THE GOLD ORNAMENTS. NO GOLD ORNAMENTS BELONGING TO THE THREE PERSONS WERE ALSO CLAIMED DU RING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS OR DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS . THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO NOT IDENTIFIED THE ITEMS BELONGING TO THES E THREE PERSONS. THUS THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 10. BEING AGGRIEVED WITH THE SAID ORDER OF THE CIT( A) BOTH THE REVENUE AND THE ASSESSEE ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 11. THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS BENC H OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF LIZA GIRISH SHAH VS. DCIT IN ITA NO .2516 AND 2685/AHD/2010 ORDER DATED 21.6.2013 HAS HELD AS UND ER: .. REGARDING SECOND OBJECTION OF THE AO THAT ITEM S ARE NOT TALLYING WE FIND FORCE IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE RAISED BEFORE THE AO LEARNED CIT(A) AND BEFORE US ALSO THAT OVER THE PERIOD OF TIME ITEMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY KEEP ON CHA NGING BECAUSE OF REMAKING AND THEREFORE GROSS WEIGHT OF GOLD JEWEL LERY FOUND IN COURSE OF SEARCH SHOULD BE TAKEN AS EXPLAINED TO TH E EXTENT OF GROSS WEIGHT OF GOLD JEWELLERY AS PER VALUATION REPORT AL READY ACCEPTED AS PER WEALTH TAX RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IF ANY OR AS IN THE PRESENT CASE A VALUATION REPORT ENCLOSED WITH WILL OF VIRB ALABEN MOTHER-IN- LAW OF THE ASSESSEE AND ITEM WISE TALLYING OF GOLD JEWELLERY IS NOT ESSENTIAL. HENCE WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTE RFERE IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION DELE TED BY HIM. IN THIS REGARD WE SUSTAIN HIS ORDER. ACCORDINGLY GROUND N O.1 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 12. HE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT THE GROSS-WEIGHT OF THE JEWELLERY SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE WEALTH-TAX RETURN SHOU LD BE ACCEPTED AS DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE AND NOT ACCORDING TO ITE M-WISE TALLY CARAT- WISE TALLY GROSS-WEIGHT AND NUMBER OF DIAMONDS WIT H REGARD TO EACH ITEM OF JEWELLERY. IT(SS)A NO.590/AHD/2012 WITH CO 10 13. ON THE OTHER HAND ON MERIT DR SUPPORTED THE OR DER OF THE AO. THE OTHER CONTENTION OF THE DR WAS THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT GIVING THE AO OPPORTUNITY TO OFFER HIS COMMENTS ON THE NEW/ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FURNISHED BEFORE HIM IN TH E FORM OF DETAILS OF RECONCILIATION STATEMENTS AS REQUIRED UNDER RULE 4 6A OF THE I.T.RULES. 14. IN REPLY THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT NO NEW OR FRESH EVIDENCES WERE FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND THE REC ONCILIATION STATEMENT WHICH WAS FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A) WAS PREPARED FROM THE VALUATION REPORT WHICH WAS PREPARED DURING THE COURSE OF SEA RCH AND THE VALUATION REPORT WHICH WAS FILED ALONG WITH WEALTH -TAX RETURNS. THUS NO NEW/FRESH EVIDENCE WAS FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A). 15. THE DR COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE ABOVE EXPLANATI ON OF THE ASSESSEE. WE THEREFORE FIND THAT NO NEW/FRESH EV IDENCE WAS ENTERTAINED BY THE CIT(A). THUS THIS GROUND OF AP PEAL OF THE REVENUE HAS NO MERIT. 16. FURTHER IN RESPECT OF OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE WE FIND THAT NO MISTAKE IN THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) COULD BE POINTED OUT BY THE DR. THE DR COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE CONCLUS ION OF THE CIT(A) THAT MINOR DIFFERENCE IN DESCRIPTION OF JEWELLERY I N TWO VALUATION REPORTS IS POSSIBLE BECAUSE OF DIFFERENCE IN NOMENCLATURE USED BY TWO VALUERS THE MINOR DIFFERENCE IN NUMBER OF SMALL DIAMONDS IS POSSIBLE ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE BECAUSE OF HUMAN COUNTING ERROR OR BECAUSE OF NORMAL WEAR AND TEAR AND NOMINAL DIFFERENCE IN WEI GHT COULD ALSO BE ON ACCOUNT OF TWO DIFFERENT PERCEPTIONS OF JEWELERS. WE THUS DO NOT FIND ANY FORCE IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND ACCORDI NGLY THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 17. COMING TO THE CROSS-OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE ABOVE QUOTED DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT GOLD JEWELLERY TO THE EXTENT OF GROSS WEIGHT ALREADY IT(SS)A NO.590/AHD/2012 WITH CO 11 DISCLOSED SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED BEC AUSE DESCRIPTION OF THE JEWELLERY KEEP ON CHANGING ON REMAKING OF JEWEL LERY. 18. WE FIND THAT THIS DECISION WAS NOT CITED AND T HEREFORE COULD NOT BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIE S. WE FIND THAT NO FINDING HAS BEEN RECORDED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AS TO WHETHER THE JEWELLERY FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH WHICH WERE NOT TALLIED WITH THE DESCRIPTION OF JEWELLERY GIVEN IN THE VALUATION REPORT FILED WITH WEALTH-TAX RETURN COULD BE MADE FROM REMAKING OF U NTALLIED JEWELLERY STATED IN THE VALUATION REPORT FILED ALONG WITH WEA LTH-TAX RETURN OR NOT. WE FURTHER OBSERVE THAT THE ASSESSEE ALSO COULD N OT BRING ANY MATERIAL BEFORE US TO SHOW THAT THE SAME WAS POSSIBLE. IN T HE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW IT SHALL BE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE TO RESTORE THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF T HE AO FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE AB OVE CITED DECISION AND ACTUAL POSITION IN THE LIGHT OF THE DISCUSSION MADE ABOVE. NEEDLESS TO MENTION THAT THE AO SHALL ALLOW REASONABLE AND PRO PER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE ADJUDICATING THE ISS UE AFRESH. THUS THIS GROUND OF THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 19. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED AND THE CROSS-OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STAT ISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON THURSDAY THE 30 TH APRIL 2015 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (KUL BHARAT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ( N.S. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 30/04/2015