- (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of the Tribunal dated July 31, 2000.
(2.) A search operation was carried out on July 7 and 8, 1987, in the residential premises of the assessee situated at Katla Purohitji, Jaipur. The residence was jointly occupied by the assessee and his two brothers, namely, Ghanshyam Das Agarwal and Goverdhan Das Agarwal, and also their mother, Smt. Radha Devi. During the course of search, some cash, gold ornaments and certain jewellery were seized, as per annexure C-14. Some jewellery was also found in addition to the jewellery seized, which was however released. The list of the jewellery is as per annexure D-4. The assessee has made a surrender of income of Rs. 9,28,516 during the course of search. Some time after the search, the Gold Control authorities attached jewellery belonging to the assessee kept in a locker. This jewellery was valued at Rs. 13,57,900. Again that was revalued by the Gold Control authorities at Rs. 7,985 only. The total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs. 17,57,580, as one-third of the total seized cash, jewellery and gold and silver articles had been assessed in the hands of the assessee and his two brothers. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) found that the Assessing Officer has not properly valued the jewellery, therefore, he restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to revalue the ornaments and jewellery and get it valued by an approved valuer. The relevant para, of the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) reads as under : "But instead of making any relevant enquiries or investigation in the matter the Assessing Officer has rejected the claim of the appellant in an arbitrary manner by making various presumptions. The Assessing Officer has not even bothered to get the said ornaments valued by an approved valuer of the Department before rejecting the claim of the appellant. This issue is therefore restored to the file of the Assessing Officer with the directions that the said jewellery and ornaments which are still in the custody of the Customs Department may be got valued from an approved valuer of the Department in the presence of the appellant and the Customs authorities. The consequential relief should thereafter be allowed by deducting difference between the value of the ornaments determined at Rs. 13,56,000 at the time of order under Section 132(5) and the value of ornaments which would be finally determined by an approved valuer of the Income-tax Department." When the matter has been restored to the Income-tax Officer, though he has complied with the directions and got valued the gold ornaments and silver ornaments at Rs. 31,591, in addition to that he has also assessed the jewellery found in the locker which was in the name of Smt. Radha Devi, the mother of the assessee, and which was seized by the Customs authorities on March 24, 1988. That jewellery has not been considered in the original assessment dated March 27, 1991, nor any direction has been given by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to value that jewellery or make the addition in the income of the assessee on account of that jewellery found in the locker of Smt. Radha Devi. In appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has upheld the addition made by the Income-tax Officer on the basis of valuation of jewellery found in the locker which was in the name of Smt. Radha Devi and has upheld the view taken by the Assessing Officer.
(3.) IN appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal found that there was no direction of the Commissioner of INcome-tax (Appeals) in the first round, regarding the valuation of jewellery found in the locker of Smt. Radha Devi, nor was the assessment order set aside in toto with a direction to make a fresh assessment nor was that jewellery the subject matter in the original assessment, therefore, the Tribunal held that the INcome-tax Officer has gone beyond the directions of the Commissioner of INcome-tax (Appeals) in order dated March 13, 1992, therefore, the addition made by the INcome-tax Officer, on the fresh ground that addition is deleted. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Mr. Singhi, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that though there was no direction to value the ornaments found in the locker of Smt. Radha Devi, but that was the jewellery which was found and which was unaccounted, therefore, the Assessing Officer made the addition on the basis of investment made in that jewellery. Mr. Kasliwal, learned counsel for the assessee, submits that when the jewellery found in the locker of Smt. Radha Devi was not the subject matter of the original assessment, nor has any direction been given by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for valuing that jewellery for the purpose of addition in the income of the assessee, the Income-tax Officer cannot go beyond the directions of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in giving effect to the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dated March 13, 1992. Learned counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the decisions of this court in the cases of Rambilas Chandram v. CIT [1985] 156 ITR 344 and in the case of CIT v. Mahindra and Co. [1995] 215 ITR 922. ;