IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
 . 
   ITA 460/2013  
 . 
 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XIII 
 . 
 ..... Appellant 
 . 
 Through Mr. N.P. Sahni, Sr. Standing Counsel. 
 . 
 versus 
 . 
 SH KULDEEP RAI CHAWLA 
 . 
 ..... Respondent 
 . 
 Through Nemo. 
 . 
 CORAM: 
 . 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA 
 . 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 O R D E R 
 . 
     08.10.2013 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 The findings of the tribunal are factual.  The question raised is 
 whether the said findings are perverse. 
 . 
 2. On the question of jewellery, learned counsel for the appellant has 
 rightly submitted that the wealth tax return of the wife was filed after 
 the date of search on 28th February, 2007.  However, the tribunal has 
 held that the jewellery belonged to the wife and the respondent-assessee 
 had inherited jewellery from his mother.  The total value of the 
 jewellery as per 2007 rates was Rs.31,71,990/- but addition of 
 Rs.26,31,990/- was made with the Assessing Officer accepting that 
 jewellery worth Rs.5,40,000/- belonged to the wife.  Jewellery stated to 
 be of the wife was valued at Rs.17,85,050/- and jewellery found in the 
 locker was Rs.13,86,940/-.  The respondent had stated that the said 
 . 
 jewellery in the locker originally belonged to his late mother.  It is noticeable that details of jewellery owned and acquired are not required 
 to be mentioned in the income tax returns.  Income declared by the 
 respondent-assessee for earlier years is neither stated nor mentioned. 
 Neither has it been stated whether the respondent-assessee was questioned 
 about source/acquisition of jewellery at the time of search and whether 
 any explanation was given.  For the assessment year in question, i.e., 
 Assessment Year 2007-08, the assessee had declared professional receipts 
 of Rs.8,62,511/- and after deducting expenses of Rs.4,50,454/- net income 
 of Rs.4,12,057/- was declared.  With regard to jewellery inherited from 
 the mother, her will, items mentioned therein and valuation report was 
 referred to by the Commissioner (Appeals). 
 . 
 3. With regard to cash of Rs.14,57,200/-, we find that at the time of 
 search, statement of the respondent-assessee was recorded and in which he 
 has deposed that Rs.10 lacs belonged to his brother and Rs.73,000/- was 
 received from Suchitra Puri regarding a civil matter.  This explanation 
 has been accepted by the tribunal and the first appellate authority. 
 Addition of Rs.84,000/- has been sustained by the tribunal. 
 . 
 4. Keeping in view the aforesaid factual matrix, we do not think any 
 substantial question of law arises for consideration.  The appeal is 
 dismissed. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 SANJIV KHANNA, J. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. 
 . 
 OCTOBER 08, 2013 
 . 
 VKR/NA 
 . 
 $ 28 and 29 
 .