JUDGMENT 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 sustaining the addition of 15 tolas gold jewellery in the hands of the appellants being treated as unexplained investment irrespective of the facts that affidavit furnished by the appellant was not disbelieved by the Tribunal ?" 2. On February 3, 1993, a search and seizure operation was carried out at the premises of the assessee-appellant under section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1961"). During the course of search, some books, documents, cash and jewellery were found and seized. The relevant assessment year is 1993-94. On March 30, 1994, the assessee has shown income of Rs. 51,954. 3. A notice under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act was issued. Reply, in detail was filed by the assessee, inter alia, stating that there was an addition on account of jewellery found. The total jewellery found at the premises of the assessee was 1,799 gms. 4. At the Tribunal level, regarding unexplained investment in the gold jewellery, the Tribunal has held that out of 30 tolas, only 15 tolas was considered reasonable and 30 tolas was considered as investment in the gold jewellery, found at the time of search and that was treated as the jewellery, belonging to the first wife, Manfuli Devi, and the rest of 15 tolas of gold jewellery was treated as unexplained investment in the hands of the assessee. 5. Learned counsel for the assessee submits that considering the status of the financial position of the assessee, there should be no addition on account of unexplained investment in gold jewellery. Even otherwise, the seized jewellery belonged to all the five ladies. The major part of the seized jewellery was accepted as that belonging to the ladies and when they were wealth-tax assessees, no part of the jewellery should be treated as unexplained investment in the jewellery. 6. Learned counsel for the Revenue, Mr. Singhi, submits that the jewellery in question has been shown in the wealth-tax assessment. Then, of course, no addition can be made on account of jewellery found during the search. 7. 6. Learned counsel for the Revenue, Mr. Singhi, submits that the jewellery in question has been shown in the wealth-tax assessment. Then, of course, no addition can be made on account of jewellery found during the search. 7. Considering his submissions and perusal of the orders of the authorities below, no authority, including the Tribunal has discussed this aspect, whether the jewellery in question, i.e., 15 tolas gold jewellery has been shown in the wealth-tax return. There is nothing on record to show that part of the jewellery has been disclosed in the wealth-tax return. 8. In the interest of justice, we deem it proper that the Assessing Officer should verify from the wealth-tax return whether the jewellery in question has been disclosed in the wealth-tax return. If that has been shown in the wealth-tax return, that cannot be treated as unexplained investment in gold jewellery. It should also be seen that those return should be filed before the date of search. 9. In the result, we set aside the order of the Tribunal to the extent relating to the addition on account of 15 tolas of gold jewellery, treated as unexplained investment in the gold jewellery and remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer to verify from the wealth-tax returns of these ladies, whether the entire jewellery, which was found during the search, has been disclosed in the wealth-tax return. If the wealth-tax returns are filed before the date of search, then, no addition is warranted. If the wealth-tax returns are filed, after the search then the Assessing Officer will be at liberty to consider the material on record and take a fresh decision, on addition, on account of unexplained investment in the jewellery. 10. With the above directions, the appeal stands disposed of. *******