Shivaji R. Mohite v. ACIT, Central Circle, Kolhapur
[Citation -2016-LL-0921-145]

Citation 2016-LL-0921-145
Appellant Name Shivaji R. Mohite
Respondent Name ACIT, Central Circle, Kolhapur
Court ITAT-Pune
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 21/09/2016
Assessment Year 2012-13
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags unexplained investment • search and seizure • addition of value • valuation report • vdis
Bot Summary: During the course of search the statement of the assessee was recorded u/s.132(4) in which the assessee apart from other things had declared unexplained investment in gold jewellery at Rs.13,15,000/- and unexplained investment in silver articles at Rs.6,10,000/-. Since out of the total gold of 1962.050 gms assessee s explanation regarding the balance of gold has already been accepted further benefit cannot be given in respect of 500 gms of gold jewellery. On the above facts I find that contrary to the claim made by the assessee in appeal, the assessee's averments in support of his claim are not supported by documentary evidences. We find the assessee in his statement recorded u/s.132(4) at the time of search had offered an amount of Rs.13,15,000/- as unexplained investment in gold jewellery and Rs.6,10,000/- as unexplained investment in silver articles. During the course of assessment proceedings the assessee submitted that the same should not be added in view of the gold declared under wealth tax return, 500gms of gold belonging to his wife as per CBDT Circular, gold belonging to his mother-in-law Smt. Nilima Mandhare and the declaration of 1031.128 gms under VDIS, 1997. We find the AO rejected the above contention of the assessee on the ground that there is nothing on record or no evidence was produced by the assessee to show as to whether the same items which have been found in search were declared under VDIS scheme. Since the AO has already granted sufficient relief to the assessee on the basis of evidences produced before him despite the admission of the assessee during the course of search in his statement recorded u/s.132(4) and since no other evidence was produced before the CIT(A) or even before us we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) upholding the addition made by the AO. Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) being a reasoned one is upheld and the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed.


IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B , PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM ITA No.1823/PN/2014 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Mr. Shivaji R. Mohite, Appellant Parvati Kunj, 250/B, Nagala Park, Kolhapur PAN :ABGPM8687E v/s ACIT, Central Circle, Kolhapur Respondent Assessee by : None Respondent by : Ms. Nandita Kanchan Date of Hearing :20.09.2016 Date of Pronouncement:21 .09.2016 ORDER PER R.K.PANDA, AM : This appeal filed by Assessee is directed against order dated 25-07-2014 of CIT(A), Kolhapur relating to Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. This case was fixed for number of times and was last fixed for hearing on 20-09-2016. Although notice was duly served on assessee through RPAD (acknowledgement placed on record) none appeared on behalf of assessee nor any petition seeking adjournment of case was filed. Therefore, case is being decided on basis of material available on record and after hearing Ld. Departmental Representative. 2 ITA No.1823/PN/2014 3. only ground raised by assessee reads as under : 1. Learned CIT(A), Kolhapur, erred in law and on facts in confirming additions made by Learned AO on account of unexplained gold jewellery and silver articles without appreciating fact such as wealth tax return, VDIS disclosure, streedhan, CBDT Circular, gift on marriage application and inherited articles. 4. Facts of case, in brief, are that assessee is individual and has filed his return of income on 16-03-2013 declaring total income of Rs.1,48,67,670/-. In this case search u/s.132 of I.T. Act was carried out on 25-08-2011. During course of search action cash totaling Rs.9,45,925/- and jewellery valued at Rs.76,30,269/- were found out of which jewellery worth Rs.19,73,184/- was seized. During course of search statement of assessee was recorded u/s.132(4) in which assessee apart from other things had declared unexplained investment in gold jewellery at Rs.13,15,000/- and unexplained investment in silver articles at Rs.6,10,000/-. However, during course of assessment proceedings it was submitted that addition on account of gold jewellery and silver articles should not be made. In support of his claim, assessee stated that as per wealth tax return of Shri S.R. Mohite 626 gms of gold was declared. Further, out of total gold found at 1962.050 gms quantity of 474.30 gms belong to his mother-in-law Smt. Nilima Mandhare. confirmation was also furnished to this effect. It was submitted that in VDIS 1997 1031.128 gms gold was declared by assessee. Further, 500 gms of gold belong to Smt. Monica Mohite as Streedhan as per CBDT Circular. 5. As regards silver articles are concerned it was stated that 3 kgs of silver were declared in wealth tax return of Shri Shivaji R. Mohite, 10 kgs of silver were gifted by Smt. Nilima Mandhare and 10 3 ITA No.1823/PN/2014 kgs of silver articles has been declared in course of search and seizure operation. 6. However, AO was not satisfied with explanation given by assessee. According to him, assessee has not placed on record any evidence to prove that jewellery has been received as gift. Since out of total gold of 1962.050 gms assessee s explanation regarding balance of gold has already been accepted further benefit cannot be given in respect of 500 gms of gold jewellery. On similar reasoning since total silver found was 21.447 kgs and declaration was only in respect of 10 kgs, therefore, AO noted that sufficient credit has already been given in respect of balance silver. Thus, AO added value of 500 gms of gold and 10 kgs of silver as income applied to unexplained investment. 7. Before CIT(A) it was contended that AO has failed to appreciate that gold jewellery and silver articles are very well explained considering facts such as wealth tax return, VDIS disclosure, Streedhan as per CBDT Circular, gift on marriage occasion and jewellery belonging to his mother-in-law and inherited articles etc. 8. However, CIT(A) also was not satisfied with explanation given by assessee and upheld addition made by AO by observing as under : 5. On above facts I find that contrary to claim made by assessee in appeal, assessee's averments in support of his claim are not supported by documentary evidences. In course of search and seizure operation assessee has himself offered 500 gms. of gold as undisclosed investment. Later on during assessment proceedings he attempted to retract from disclosure. Total gold jewellery found was having net weight of 1962.050 gms. Assessee stated that 626 gms. has been declared in his wealth tax return. However, nothing is on record or 4 ITA No.1823/PN/2014 was produced by assessee to show whether these are same items which have been found in search. Further, it was stated that 474.30 gms. belonged to his mother-in-law and her confirmation was filed. However, she appears to have no wealth tax return or any other evidence. 1031.128 gms. was stated to be out of disclosure made in VDIS, 1997 but no valuation report which was filed with VDIS has been furnished to substantiate claim and to establish that jewellery found are same as were disclosed in VDIS. In brief, there was no evidence in support of any of claim of assessee. At time of search and seizure operation assessee was conscious of this fact, that is why he declared 500 gms. of jewellery as undisclosed. As per Board circular no. 1916 dated 11/05/1994, 500 gms. Of jewellery in respect of married lady member and 250 gms. in respect of unmarried lady member may not be seized during search operation. However this does not mean that respective quantity should be treated as explained. Thus, thumb rule prescribed vide this circular to avoid unnecessary seizure and harassment to assessee cannot be taken as instruction to treat quantity as explained. circular also talks of due credit to be given to status of family and living standard of assessee. Looking to all these facts, assessing officer has made addition in respect of only 500 gms. of jewellery out of total jewellery of 1962.050 gms. which means 1462 gms. of jewellery has already been considered as explained. There is no further justification to treat additional 500 gms. As explained. assessing officer s action is justified. Similarly, in respect of silver articles, addition of value of 10 kgs. Of silver out of total 24.447 kgs is justified. addition made by assessing officer is hereby confirmed and grounds taken by appellant are rejected. 9. Aggrieved with such order of CIT(A) assessee is in appeal before us. 10. We have considered arguments advanced by Ld. Departmental Representative and perused material available on record. We find assessee in his statement recorded u/s.132(4) at time of search had offered amount of Rs.13,15,000/- as unexplained investment in gold jewellery and Rs.6,10,000/- as unexplained investment in silver articles. However, during course of assessment proceedings assessee submitted that same should not be added in view of gold declared under wealth tax return, 500gms of gold belonging to his wife as per CBDT Circular, gold belonging to his mother-in-law Smt. Nilima Mandhare and declaration of 1031.128 gms under VDIS, 1997. So far as silver 5 ITA No.1823/PN/2014 articles are concerned it had been argued that 3 kgs of silver were declared in wealth tax return, 10 kgs of silver were gifted by mother-in-law and 10kgs has been declared in course of search. We find AO rejected above contention of assessee on ground that there is nothing on record or no evidence was produced by assessee to show as to whether same items which have been found in search were declared under VDIS scheme. He however has restricted addition to 500 gms of gold ornaments and 10 kgs of silver which according to him remained unexplained. We find Ld.CIT(A) upheld action of AO on ground that assessee could not produce any evidence in support of any of claim made by him. reason given by CIT(A) while sustaining addition made by AO has already been reproduced in preceding paragraph. Since AO has already granted sufficient relief to assessee on basis of evidences produced before him despite admission of assessee during course of search in his statement recorded u/s.132(4) and since no other evidence was produced before CIT(A) or even before us, therefore, we do not find any infirmity in order of CIT(A) upholding addition made by AO. Accordingly, order of CIT(A) being reasoned one is upheld and ground raised by assessee is dismissed. 11. In result, appeal filed by assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on 21-09-2016. Sd/- Sd/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) (R.K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Pune; " Dated : 21st September, 2016. 6 ITA No.1823/PN/2014 Copy of Order forwarded to : 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT(A), Kolhapur 4. CIT, Kolhapur 5. DR, ITAT, B Pune; 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, // True Copy // // True Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Pune Shivaji R. Mohite v. ACIT, Central Circle, Kolhapur
Report Error