This appeal of the Revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) I, Chennai, dated

14.05.2008 and pertains to assessment year 2006-07.

2. Dr. Milind Madhukar Bhusari, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the only issue arises for 2 I.T.A. No.1790/Mds/08 consideration is with regard to addition made under Section 69B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act). According to the Ld. D.R., the Assessing Officer made an addition of `33,65,000/- on account of unexplained investment in jewellery and another sum of `75,597/- towards unexplained investment in silver articles. The Ld. D.R. further submitted that there was search in the residential premises of the assessee on 03.08.2005. In the course of search operation, several incriminating material, including gold jewellery and silver articles, were found. During the course of examination, the assessee explained before the Assessing Officer that she has no explanation to offer with regard to investment made in the jewellery and silver articles. Therefore, the Assessing Officer found that 468.05 gms of jewellery belonging to assessees deceased mother and another 836.98 gms of jewellery found in the safe deposit locker were treated as unexplained investment. In the absence of any details of purchase of jewellery, the Assessing Officer estimated the cost of investment on the basis of the rate provided by Madras Jewellers and Diamond Merchantss Association. Similarly, 20,504.71 gms of silver articles were found. In the wealth-tax return, the assessee has disclosed 14,015 gms of silver articles. The balance of 6489 gms remained unexplained. 3 I.T.A. No.1790/Mds/08 Therefore, the Assessing Officer made an addition of `33,65,000/- on the basis of the rate provided on the date of search operation.

3. On the contrary, Dr. Anita Sumanth, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the entire addition was made on the basis of the statement recorded from the assessees husband on

13.09.2005. During the course of assessment proceeding, the assessee explained that the entire jewellery was declared in the wealth-tax return and also under Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997 by different members of the assessees family. The Assessing Officer considered the jewellery declared in the wealth- tax return for the assessment year 1993-94. With regard to jewellery declared under Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997, the Assessing Officer found that the jewellery was converted into stock-in-trade of the family jewellery business and therefore, it cannot be considered as available at the time of search. Referring to the order of the CIT(Appeals), the Ld.counsel submitted that whether it is stock-in-trade or personal jewellery, it is a fact that the jewellery was found during the course of search operation. According to the Ld. counsel, the jewellery in fact belonged to various members of family and was converted into stock-in-trade. 4 I.T.A. No.1790/Mds/08 The Ld.counsel further submitted that the assessee has declared 1140 gms of jewellery and 2 Kgs of silver in the wealth-tax return.

1749.050 gms of gold jewellery was declared under Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme. The assessee has filed material evidence to support the claim before the lower authorities. The jewellery and the silver articles declared under Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme were credited to the assessees capital account as on 31.03.1998 and the same was filed along with return of income for the assessment year 1998-99. The assessee has also received 740 gms of gold jewellery and 3.8 Kgs of silver articles from her late father. The same was disclosed in the wealth-tax return for the assessment years 2004-05 to 2006-07. Therefore,according to the Ld. counsel, the CIT(Appeals) found that the assessee has explained the source of the jewellery. Therefore, the CIT(Appeals) found that the jewellery declared in VDIS and in the wealth-tax return from the assessment years 2003-04 has to be excluded. Thus, according to the Ld. counsel, the CIT(Appeals) has rightly deleted the addition.

4. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. It is not in 5 I.T.A. No.1790/Mds/08 dispute that the assessee has disclosed the gold jewellery and silver articles in the wealth-tax return. The jewellery was also disclosed under VDIS, 1997. The assessee also claimed that 740 gms of gold jewellery and 3.8 Kgs of silver articles were received from her late father. The jewellery belonged to various members of the family was converted into stock-in-trade on various dates. The CIT(Appeals), after considering the disclosure made by the assessee in the VDIS and in the wealth-tax return, found that the jewellery disclosed under the VDIS and gold redeemed under the Bond Scheme were credited by Rajesh Kumar to his capital account and the same was disclosed in the income-tax return for the assessment year 1998-99. When the assessee has disclosed the jewellery and silver articles in the wealth-tax return and for the jewellery disclosed in the VDIS, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that there is no need for making any addition. The claim of the assessee that she received 740 gms of gold jewellery and 3.8Kgs of silver articles from her late father cannot be doubted. In those circumstances, as rightly found by the CIT(Appeals), there is no justification to ignore the jewellery and silver articles disclosed in the wealth-tax return and the jewellery disclosed in the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the 6 I.T.A. No.1790/Mds/08 considered opinion that the CIT(Appeals) has rightly deleted the addition. Hence, this Tribunal has no reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is confirmed.

5. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on 22 nd January, 2016 at Chennai. sd/- sd/- (. ) (... ) (A. Mohan Alankamony) (N.R.S. Ganesan) /Accountant Member  /Judicial Member /Chennai, 4/Dated, the 22 nd January, 2016. Kri. . ,56 76 /Copy to:

1. +/Appellant

2. ,-+ /Respondent

3. 8 ()/CIT(A)-I, Chennai

4. 8/CIT, Central-I, Chennai

5. 6 , /DR

6. /GF.