Brief of the Case
In the case of DCIT Vs. Raj Kumar Saraogi the Kolkata ITAT held that comparison with the items of jewellery found at the time of search with wealth tax return, which were filed much earlier was putting an onerous task on assessee to prove something impossible, and assessee cannot be asked to prove something which is beyond its control.
Facts of the Case
The Assessee had filed return showing total income of Rs.1,59,33,480/-. A search and seizure operation was conducted on 11.09.2009 in the residential premises of the assesse. In course of search and seizure operation in his residential flat along with his brother, Sri Pradeep Kr. Saraogi, jewellery worth of Rs.3,38,98,933/- was found out of which jewellery of Rs.1,78,93,857/- was seized and assessee in its disclosure petition u/s 132(4), disclosed his undisclosed jewellery at Rs. 75 lakhs. In order to explain the difference between the inventorised jewellery and jewellery disclosed in petition u/s. 132(4) of the Act, the assessee pointed out that the Wealth Tax return were filed by the family members before the date of search showing their respective jewellery.
It was further stated that apart from above, the family members purchased jewellery on the occasion of marriage of ShyamSaraogi, son of the assesse during the financial year 2008-09 and assessee filed copy of bills along with copy of the relevant bank statement in support of the said purchases of jewellery. He also submitted the details of jewellery offered by the Assessee as undisclosed vide reconciliation statement. The summary of details submitted by the assesse and the details of total Jewellery found in the course of search as per Department’s Valuer’s Report is as follows:-
