Pravin B Shah, Mumbai vs Department Of Income Tax

सव[ौी जोगींि िसंह, Ûयाियक सदःय एवं नरे Ûि कुमार ǒबãलैáया, लेखा सदःय के सम¢

BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND

SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2842/Mum/2013 िनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year : 2010-11 (िनधा[

The DCIT, Cen.Cir.22, बनाम Shri Pravin b. Shah, बनाम/ Room No.403, 4 t h Floor, 102, Chadramuni, Vs. Aaykar Bhavan, MK Road, Hanuman Road, Mumbai 400 020 Vileparle(E), Mumbai 400057 ःथायी ले खा सं . /जीआइआर सं . /PAN/GIR No. : AFGPS2040K (अपीलाथȸ /Appellant) .. (ू×यथȸ / Respondent) अपीलाथȸ ओर से/ Appellant by: Shri R.N.D'souza ू×यथȸ कȧ ओर से/Respondent by: Shri Ajeet A. Manwani

सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख / Date of Hearing :27.01.2015 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख /Date of Pronouncement :27.01.2015

आदे श / O R D E R

PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM:

This appeal by the Revenue is preferred against the order of the Ld.CIT(A)-39, Mumbai dated 17/01/2013 pertaining to assessment year 2010-11. The sole grievance of the Revenue is that Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.11,60,775/- made under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961(the Act) as unexplained jewellery.

2 I.T.A. No. 2842/Mum/2013 2. The assessee is trading in building materials. The business income was shown at Rs.23,92,142/-. During the course of search at his residence, certain jewellery were found. The total jewellery found was of Rs.37.88 lacs out of which jewellery worth Rs.13.96 lacs were seized. The assessee offered additional income of Rs. 15.00 lacs in his statement recorded on 04/12/2009. The assessee was asked to explain the source of acquisition of the jewellery. The assessee replied that the jewellery belongs to his mother, which is about 495.800 grams and silver article of about 9.30 kgs. which was acquired by her at the time of her marriage, social functions etc. It was further explained that assessee's wife and his sons inherited the jewellery from his mother and also from the maternal grandmother. However, on receiving no documentary evidence in support of the claim, the AO made an addition of Rs.11,60,775/- under section 69A of the Act in the hands of the assessee.

3. The assessee carried the matter before Ld. CIT(A) and reiterated its claim. After considering the facts and the submission, the Ld. CIT(A) was convinced with the reply of the assessee and held as under:

"8. I have considered the assessment as made and also the submissions as made by the appellant. It is seen to be an undisputed fact that the appellant's mother had been living with him through out her life and in these circumstances circumstances, reasonable belief can be formed that the said items of jewellery and gold had come to be inherited from her, which is not unusual in joint families. Moreover, it is also to be reckoned that an amount of Rs. 15 lakhs has already been disclosed and offered to tax by the appellant towards value of unaccounted jewellery. Not only this, the appellant had got a separate valuation of jewellery and silver utensils done by the Government Approved Valuer and submitted that the Valuation Report was in the name of his late mother. The said Valuation Report has not been rejected. In these circumstances, and also considering the joint family status and that the appellant belongs to a business community and also the fact that there is the tradition of receiving gifts during occasions of 3 I.T.A. No. 2842/Mum/2013

marriage etc., I am of the view that the said addition under s.69A is not called for on the facts of the case as existing. Accordingly, the addition made under s. 69A stands deleted."

4. Revenue is in appeal against this finding of Ld. CIT(A). None appeared on behalf of the assessee.

5. We have heard Ld. Departmental Representative at length, who strongly supported the assessment order. We have carefully perused the orders of the authorities below. The AO has rejected the claim of the assessee merely because the assessee could not substantiate the claim by filing documentary evidence/Will of the grandmother. However, we find that for adopting the valuation, the AO has considered the valuation report of the Government Approved Valuer found at the time of search. The Government Approved Valuer's report is in the name of the mother of the assessee, which shows that the valuation was done during the life time of the mother of the assessee. This valuation report has not been rejected. We agree with the observation of Ld. CIT(A) that reasonable belief can be formed that the said items of jewellery had come to be inherited from the mother which is not unusual in joint families. Considering the facts in totality, we do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of the Ld. CIT(A). The appeal filed by the Revenue is accordingly dismissed.

6. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on 27th January, 2015.

Sd/- Sd/- (JOGINDER SINGH ) (N.K. BILLAIYA) Ûयाियक सदःय/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सदःय / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER मुंबई Mumbai; Ǒदनांक Dated : 27.01.2015 व.िन.स./ VM , Sr. PS 4 I.T.A. No. 2842/Mum/2013

आदे श कȧ ूितिलǒप अमेǒषत/Copy षत of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ / The Appellant 2. ू×यथȸ / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयुƠ(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 4. आयकर आयुƠ / CIT

5. ǒवभागीय ूितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai

6. गाड[ फाईल / Guard file.

आदे शानुसार/ ार BY ORDER, स×याǒपत ूित //True Copy// उप/सहायक उप सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अिधकरण मुंबई / ITAT, Mumbai