IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "C" BENCH, MUMBAI



        BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND

              SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

             ./I.T.A. No. 2842/Mum/2013
             ( [ [ / Assessment Year : 2010-11

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



             / Date of Hearing                            :27.01.2015
             /Date of Pronouncement :27.01.2015

                            / 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)
Û /JUDICIAL MEMBER                      / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
 Mumbai;  Dated : 27.01.2015
.../ VM , Sr. PS
                           4   I.T.A. No. 2842/Mum/2013


    /Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1.  / The Appellant
2.   × / The Respondent.
3.    () / The CIT(A)-
4.     / CIT
5.    ,   , 
     / DR, ITAT, Mumbai
6.   [  / Guard file.
                                     / BY ORDER,
          ×  //True Copy//
                       / 
                    (Dy./Asstt. Registrar)
                    ,  / ITAT, Mumbai