The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ITAT in the case Sh. Nirmal Kumar Minda Versus ACIT observed and has deleted the addition and has held that it being customary amongst married women to keep on changing the jewellery’s when new designs come on the market.
The bench headed by Judicial Member, Anubhav Sharma and the Accountant Member, N. K. Billaiya in the case observed that the assessee has given an item-wise reconciliation of Wealth Tax Return items with regards to the valuation report which is being prepared during the search. Thus, it has also not been pointed by that any specific defect in the reconciliation but has given general remarks that items are not matching.
The bench in the case observed that during the search operation, the court found the jewellery and silver articles at the residence of the assessee, which amounts to Rs. 2,64,35,029, and the same were seized from the premises. Therefore, the court asked the assessee in the case to explain the source of acquisition of the jewellery with documentary evidence and it has been explained by the assessee that the jewellery was being found of during the course of the search and the same being a part of the wealth tax return and books of accounts of the assessee and has filed of a detailed reconciliation of jewellery with the wealth tax return and the books of accounts. In the present case, the AO being of the firm belief that the assessee has not submitted the source of the payment made for the purchase of the jewellery item and has not been able to reconcile the various items of jewellery with the valuation report. Further, the AO made an addition of Rs. 26435029 under Section 69B, reading with Section 115BE.
However, the addition was being challenged before the CIT (A), and once again a detailed reconciliation statement was being furnished wherein explaining the jewellery shown in the wealth tax return and the same was being found at the time of the search.
Therefore, in the case CIT was being satisfied with the reconciliation but was of the opinion that the pearls have not been properly reconciled and has sustained the addition to the extent for an amount of Rs. 331778 by giving relief for an amount of Rs. 2,61,03,251.
It has also been held by the Tribunal that the weight of the jewellery has more or less remained the same, though the design may be changed. Further, sometimes new stones are engraved, and sometimes the engraved stones are been taken out from the jewellery. Thus, the status of the family and the return of income have also to be kept in mind.
The counsel, Salil Aggarwal appeared for the
appellant.
The counsel, Sarita Kumarim represented the respondent.
