Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (7) TMI 603 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained investment u/s.69 - assessee failed to substantiate that the jewellery worth ₹ 11,00,996/- belonged to the said ladies staying at his residence - Held that:- In view of the Instruction of the CBDT bearing No.1916 dated 11th May, 1994 the gold jewellery found from the premises of the assessee from five female members ought to have been accepted as explained as the same is much lesser than the limit of gold ornaments not to be seized in a case of a person not assessed to wealth-tax. This has been recognised in a catena of cases including the recent case Of Ashok Chhada (2011 (7) TMI 142 - DELHI HIGH COURT ), wherein over 900 gms of gold jewellery were accepted in the case of lady married for over 20-25 years, in view of her status and background. As per Instruction No.1916 of CBDT, the acceptable/explained Jewellery in the case of the assessee would be 3050 gms, as against 1372 gms found during the search. In view of the above facts and the mandatory instructions of the CBDT, the AO was not justified in adding the sum of ₹ 8,50,996/- to the income of the assessee on account of gold jewellery which represents Streedhan of family members of the assessee’s family. Accordingly, we direct the AO to delete the same. The AO has also made an addition of ₹ 2,75,773/- on account of cash found during the course of search. From the record we found that during the said search action, cash of ₹ 3,05,773/- was found, It was stated that ₹ 2,25,000/· belonged to the appellant's married daughter who was then staying with him, The balance ₹ 80,773/- belonged to his nephew Anil Vanani, from whose bank account it was withdrawn and was reflected in the books of account of M/s Niru Impex. However, no confirmation from Nidhi Devani or evidence with regard to source of generation of cash in her hands has been filed. The AO also observed that she is not assessed to tax and has not definite source of income. Accordingly, we confirm the addition of ₹ 2,25,000/- treated by the AO as unexplained cash. In respect of ₹ 80,773/-, we found that this amount was withdrawn by Anil Vanani, nephew of assessee from his bank account and was reflected in his books of account of M/s Niru Impex. Accordingly, we direct the AO to delete the addition of ₹ 80,773/- which was duly explained by documentary evidence. - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
|