Shri Raj Kumar Kakrania Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi)
The reason given by the ld. CIT (A) for not accepting the assessee’s contention is that, the wealth tax return was filed 19 years earlier and it is difficult to believe that the same jewellery continued till the date of search. Such reason alone cannot be held to be tenable without any contrary material found during the course of search, because if the overall quantity of jewellery has been said to be available with the assessee and his wife much prior to the date of search and the same has been disclosed then presumption is that the said jewellery must be in the possession of the assessee at the time of search. Before us, ld. counsel for the assessee has also filed reconciliation statement to show that most of the jewellery as was disclosed earlier in the wealth tax return still continued to be in possession and some of them were reconverted over the period of time. Even if there was a reconversion then if the overall quantity of jewellery is available with the assessee, then presumption goes in favour of the assessee that same quantity which stood disclosed earlier is available with the assessee and hence nothing can be treated as unexplained.
