- (1.) THE appeal was admitted in terms of the following question : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in reversing order passed by the CIT(A) on account of addition made by the AO regarding seized gold ornaments in absence of Panchnama or valuation report, irrespective of the fact that Panchnama was prepared at the time of search on 7th Sept., 1989 ?'
(2.) A search was conducted in this case on 7th Sept., 1989, inter alia, jewellery weighing 382.5 gms. was found at the time of search. Before AO, the case of the assessee was that there are three ladies in the family and this jewellery belongs to them. The explanation was rejected and addition of Rs. 1,00,000 was made on account of unexplained investment in jewellery and precious stones. In appeal before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) considering the status of the assessee found that the gold jewellery belonged to three ladies and addition on account of unexplained investment in gold jewellery was deleted. However, the CIT(A) has remitted the matter back for reconsideration of addition on account of precious stones found worth Rs. 53,500.
(3.) IN appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal has reversed the finding of CIT(A) on the ground that no Panchnama of valuation report was brought on record, therefore, the deletion of addition by CIT(A) in this regard is bad and the Tribunal restored the addition made by the AO.;